Stop the Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness

Hilary

Armstrong

House of Lords

Dear Baroness Armstrong

Proposals in the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill will block countless people from exercising their fundamental right to protest, risk criminalising marginalised communities, and prevent meaningful change.

I am writing to ask that you vote for amendments in the House of Lords that would safeguard our right to stand up for issues we care about.

RESTRICTING REPEAT PROTESTS

Protest has always been a part of British culture and tradition; our ability to do so is central to a healthy, functioning democracy. But clause 372 of the Crime and Policing Bill would restrict this right by giving police the power ban repeat demonstrations in a designated area.

If this is voted into law, senior police officers must consider the “cumulative disruption” caused by previous – or even future – protests in the area as a reason to ban a demonstration, regardless of whether they were organised by the same people or focused on the same issues.

They would also decide what area is restricted, with no clear rules on how big or small an area can be. This means we could see borough or city-wide bans on protests, simply because a different demonstration took place the week before.

This won't just impact frequent large-scale marches; it could restrict emergency demonstrations on issues of grave importance, or the right to organise counter protests.

Change is rarely achieved by a one-off demonstration outside Parliament; votes for women took nearly a century to achieve, as did a two-day weekend. Combined with other anti-protest measures in this Bill, banning repeat protests will have a chilling effect on how we can effectively make our voices heard and demand change.

Please VOTE AGAINST this amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill which would ban repeat demonstrations and stop people using their fundamental right to protest.

Lord Walney has also tabled an amendment which would push this “repeat protest” approach even further by creating new categories aimed at particular forms of recurring protest. This would widen the scope for pre-emptive restrictions and compound the risk that persistence itself is treated as grounds for shutting down lawful protest. 
 
Please VOTE AGAINST Government Amendment 372 and VOTE AGAINST Lord Walney’s Amendment 382E.

BANNING FACE COVERINGS AT PROTESTS

Sections 118-120 of the Crime and Policing Bill will make it a criminal offence to wear a face covering at designated protests, and police will have the power to arrest or fine anyone breaching this condition.

This would infringe on everybody’s right to decide how we protect ourselves when protesting. The lack of adequate safeguards in the Bill will particularly impact anyone who has to wear a face covering for health, religious, or privacy reasons. This could result in Muslim women, disabled people, and political dissidents being criminalised for attending protests with face coverings, and will have to prove their exemptions in court, rather than avoiding arrest in the first place.

Police already have far-reaching powers when it comes to protests, including the ability to require people to remove items if they believe they’re being used to hide their identity.

Demos polling shows that 86% of people believe everyone has the right to voice their opinion and raise awareness of issues. The Crime and Policing Bill will strip this right away from those who can only protest safely with a face covering.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part Amendments to clause remove Clauses 118-120 to scrap face covering restrictions from the Crime and Policing Bill.

BANNING PROTESTS OUTSIDE PLACES OF WORSHIP

Section 124 of the Bill also proposes giving the police powers to restrict protests ‘in the vicinity’ of places of worship.

Police already have the power to restrict protests based on their intention; this prevents genuine harm or disruption to religious communities. This new clause would instead ban protests based on the fact there is a place of worship nearby, regardless of intention, with the only criteria being that these protests could be considered ‘intimidating’.

This is an incredibly low threshold that could capture almost any protest in towns or cities across the country. Urban areas such as Westminster in Central London sees regular large-scale demonstrations outside Parliament. This entire area could now be restricted due to the numerous places of worship nearby, with no requirement to prove they are being targeted by protests.

This law risks targeting specific protest movements, from Pride marches to political demonstrations, without any evidence of religious discrimination or harassment. While the right to worship must be upheld, restricting demonstrations in this way could conflate safety concerns with our fundamental right to protest.

This law should have clear criteria that’s not open to interpretation and should only be allowed to apply when there’s a clear intent from protesters to intimidate nearby places of worship.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part amendment to remove Clause 124 from the Bill. If you are not comfortable supporting stand part, please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Blower’s Amendments 371A–371F to narrow and tighten Clause 124 by introducing clearer safeguards and limiting its scope.

FURTHER PROTEST RESTRICTIONS

Lord Davies of Gower has tabled amendments which would further restrict protest by enabling longer-lasting area bans, making it harder to organise processions quickly in response to current events, and removing the vital “reasonable excuse” safeguard that helps prevent the criminalisation of peaceful protest. Please VOTE AGAINST Amendments 382A–D.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I urge you to use your position in the House of Lords to protect our hard-won rights and freedoms. Please attend the vote on 7 January 2026 and oppose these dangerous plans.

{user_data~First Name} {user_data~Surname}
{user_data~Preferred Address Line 1}
{user_data~Preferred City}
{user_data~Preferred Postcode}

Baroness

Gabrielle

Bertin

House of Lords

Dear Baroness Bertin

Proposals in the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill will block countless people from exercising their fundamental right to protest, risk criminalising marginalised communities, and prevent meaningful change.

I am writing to ask that you vote for amendments in the House of Lords that would safeguard our right to stand up for issues we care about.

RESTRICTING REPEAT PROTESTS

Protest has always been a part of British culture and tradition; our ability to do so is central to a healthy, functioning democracy. But clause 372 of the Crime and Policing Bill would restrict this right by giving police the power ban repeat demonstrations in a designated area.

If this is voted into law, senior police officers must consider the “cumulative disruption” caused by previous – or even future – protests in the area as a reason to ban a demonstration, regardless of whether they were organised by the same people or focused on the same issues.

They would also decide what area is restricted, with no clear rules on how big or small an area can be. This means we could see borough or city-wide bans on protests, simply because a different demonstration took place the week before.

This won't just impact frequent large-scale marches; it could restrict emergency demonstrations on issues of grave importance, or the right to organise counter protests.

Change is rarely achieved by a one-off demonstration outside Parliament; votes for women took nearly a century to achieve, as did a two-day weekend. Combined with other anti-protest measures in this Bill, banning repeat protests will have a chilling effect on how we can effectively make our voices heard and demand change.

Please VOTE AGAINST this amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill which would ban repeat demonstrations and stop people using their fundamental right to protest.

Lord Walney has also tabled an amendment which would push this “repeat protest” approach even further by creating new categories aimed at particular forms of recurring protest. This would widen the scope for pre-emptive restrictions and compound the risk that persistence itself is treated as grounds for shutting down lawful protest. 
 
Please VOTE AGAINST Government Amendment 372 and VOTE AGAINST Lord Walney’s Amendment 382E.

BANNING FACE COVERINGS AT PROTESTS

Sections 118-120 of the Crime and Policing Bill will make it a criminal offence to wear a face covering at designated protests, and police will have the power to arrest or fine anyone breaching this condition.

This would infringe on everybody’s right to decide how we protect ourselves when protesting. The lack of adequate safeguards in the Bill will particularly impact anyone who has to wear a face covering for health, religious, or privacy reasons. This could result in Muslim women, disabled people, and political dissidents being criminalised for attending protests with face coverings, and will have to prove their exemptions in court, rather than avoiding arrest in the first place.

Police already have far-reaching powers when it comes to protests, including the ability to require people to remove items if they believe they’re being used to hide their identity.

Demos polling shows that 86% of people believe everyone has the right to voice their opinion and raise awareness of issues. The Crime and Policing Bill will strip this right away from those who can only protest safely with a face covering.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part Amendments to clause remove Clauses 118-120 to scrap face covering restrictions from the Crime and Policing Bill.

BANNING PROTESTS OUTSIDE PLACES OF WORSHIP

Section 124 of the Bill also proposes giving the police powers to restrict protests ‘in the vicinity’ of places of worship.

Police already have the power to restrict protests based on their intention; this prevents genuine harm or disruption to religious communities. This new clause would instead ban protests based on the fact there is a place of worship nearby, regardless of intention, with the only criteria being that these protests could be considered ‘intimidating’.

This is an incredibly low threshold that could capture almost any protest in towns or cities across the country. Urban areas such as Westminster in Central London sees regular large-scale demonstrations outside Parliament. This entire area could now be restricted due to the numerous places of worship nearby, with no requirement to prove they are being targeted by protests.

This law risks targeting specific protest movements, from Pride marches to political demonstrations, without any evidence of religious discrimination or harassment. While the right to worship must be upheld, restricting demonstrations in this way could conflate safety concerns with our fundamental right to protest.

This law should have clear criteria that’s not open to interpretation and should only be allowed to apply when there’s a clear intent from protesters to intimidate nearby places of worship.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part amendment to remove Clause 124 from the Bill. If you are not comfortable supporting stand part, please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Blower’s Amendments 371A–371F to narrow and tighten Clause 124 by introducing clearer safeguards and limiting its scope.

FURTHER PROTEST RESTRICTIONS

Lord Davies of Gower has tabled amendments which would further restrict protest by enabling longer-lasting area bans, making it harder to organise processions quickly in response to current events, and removing the vital “reasonable excuse” safeguard that helps prevent the criminalisation of peaceful protest. Please VOTE AGAINST Amendments 382A–D.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I urge you to use your position in the House of Lords to protect our hard-won rights and freedoms. Please attend the vote on 7 January 2026 and oppose these dangerous plans.

{user_data~First Name} {user_data~Surname}
{user_data~Preferred Address Line 1}
{user_data~Preferred City}
{user_data~Preferred Postcode}

Lord

Blair

House of Lords

Dear Lord Blair

Proposals in the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill will block countless people from exercising their fundamental right to protest, risk criminalising marginalised communities, and prevent meaningful change.

I am writing to ask that you vote for amendments in the House of Lords that would safeguard our right to stand up for issues we care about.

RESTRICTING REPEAT PROTESTS

Protest has always been a part of British culture and tradition; our ability to do so is central to a healthy, functioning democracy. But clause 372 of the Crime and Policing Bill would restrict this right by giving police the power ban repeat demonstrations in a designated area.

If this is voted into law, senior police officers must consider the “cumulative disruption” caused by previous – or even future – protests in the area as a reason to ban a demonstration, regardless of whether they were organised by the same people or focused on the same issues.

They would also decide what area is restricted, with no clear rules on how big or small an area can be. This means we could see borough or city-wide bans on protests, simply because a different demonstration took place the week before.

This won't just impact frequent large-scale marches; it could restrict emergency demonstrations on issues of grave importance, or the right to organise counter protests.

Change is rarely achieved by a one-off demonstration outside Parliament; votes for women took nearly a century to achieve, as did a two-day weekend. Combined with other anti-protest measures in this Bill, banning repeat protests will have a chilling effect on how we can effectively make our voices heard and demand change.

Please VOTE AGAINST this amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill which would ban repeat demonstrations and stop people using their fundamental right to protest.

Lord Walney has also tabled an amendment which would push this “repeat protest” approach even further by creating new categories aimed at particular forms of recurring protest. This would widen the scope for pre-emptive restrictions and compound the risk that persistence itself is treated as grounds for shutting down lawful protest. 
 
Please VOTE AGAINST Government Amendment 372 and VOTE AGAINST Lord Walney’s Amendment 382E.

BANNING FACE COVERINGS AT PROTESTS

Sections 118-120 of the Crime and Policing Bill will make it a criminal offence to wear a face covering at designated protests, and police will have the power to arrest or fine anyone breaching this condition.

This would infringe on everybody’s right to decide how we protect ourselves when protesting. The lack of adequate safeguards in the Bill will particularly impact anyone who has to wear a face covering for health, religious, or privacy reasons. This could result in Muslim women, disabled people, and political dissidents being criminalised for attending protests with face coverings, and will have to prove their exemptions in court, rather than avoiding arrest in the first place.

Police already have far-reaching powers when it comes to protests, including the ability to require people to remove items if they believe they’re being used to hide their identity.

Demos polling shows that 86% of people believe everyone has the right to voice their opinion and raise awareness of issues. The Crime and Policing Bill will strip this right away from those who can only protest safely with a face covering.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part Amendments to clause remove Clauses 118-120 to scrap face covering restrictions from the Crime and Policing Bill.

BANNING PROTESTS OUTSIDE PLACES OF WORSHIP

Section 124 of the Bill also proposes giving the police powers to restrict protests ‘in the vicinity’ of places of worship.

Police already have the power to restrict protests based on their intention; this prevents genuine harm or disruption to religious communities. This new clause would instead ban protests based on the fact there is a place of worship nearby, regardless of intention, with the only criteria being that these protests could be considered ‘intimidating’.

This is an incredibly low threshold that could capture almost any protest in towns or cities across the country. Urban areas such as Westminster in Central London sees regular large-scale demonstrations outside Parliament. This entire area could now be restricted due to the numerous places of worship nearby, with no requirement to prove they are being targeted by protests.

This law risks targeting specific protest movements, from Pride marches to political demonstrations, without any evidence of religious discrimination or harassment. While the right to worship must be upheld, restricting demonstrations in this way could conflate safety concerns with our fundamental right to protest.

This law should have clear criteria that’s not open to interpretation and should only be allowed to apply when there’s a clear intent from protesters to intimidate nearby places of worship.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part amendment to remove Clause 124 from the Bill. If you are not comfortable supporting stand part, please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Blower’s Amendments 371A–371F to narrow and tighten Clause 124 by introducing clearer safeguards and limiting its scope.

FURTHER PROTEST RESTRICTIONS

Lord Davies of Gower has tabled amendments which would further restrict protest by enabling longer-lasting area bans, making it harder to organise processions quickly in response to current events, and removing the vital “reasonable excuse” safeguard that helps prevent the criminalisation of peaceful protest. Please VOTE AGAINST Amendments 382A–D.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I urge you to use your position in the House of Lords to protect our hard-won rights and freedoms. Please attend the vote on 7 January 2026 and oppose these dangerous plans.

{user_data~First Name} {user_data~Surname}
{user_data~Preferred Address Line 1}
{user_data~Preferred City}
{user_data~Preferred Postcode}

Lord

Farmer

House of Lords

Dear Lord Farmer

Proposals in the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill will block countless people from exercising their fundamental right to protest, risk criminalising marginalised communities, and prevent meaningful change.

I am writing to ask that you vote for amendments in the House of Lords that would safeguard our right to stand up for issues we care about.

RESTRICTING REPEAT PROTESTS

Protest has always been a part of British culture and tradition; our ability to do so is central to a healthy, functioning democracy. But clause 372 of the Crime and Policing Bill would restrict this right by giving police the power ban repeat demonstrations in a designated area.

If this is voted into law, senior police officers must consider the “cumulative disruption” caused by previous – or even future – protests in the area as a reason to ban a demonstration, regardless of whether they were organised by the same people or focused on the same issues.

They would also decide what area is restricted, with no clear rules on how big or small an area can be. This means we could see borough or city-wide bans on protests, simply because a different demonstration took place the week before.

This won't just impact frequent large-scale marches; it could restrict emergency demonstrations on issues of grave importance, or the right to organise counter protests.

Change is rarely achieved by a one-off demonstration outside Parliament; votes for women took nearly a century to achieve, as did a two-day weekend. Combined with other anti-protest measures in this Bill, banning repeat protests will have a chilling effect on how we can effectively make our voices heard and demand change.

Please VOTE AGAINST this amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill which would ban repeat demonstrations and stop people using their fundamental right to protest.

Lord Walney has also tabled an amendment which would push this “repeat protest” approach even further by creating new categories aimed at particular forms of recurring protest. This would widen the scope for pre-emptive restrictions and compound the risk that persistence itself is treated as grounds for shutting down lawful protest. 
 
Please VOTE AGAINST Government Amendment 372 and VOTE AGAINST Lord Walney’s Amendment 382E.

BANNING FACE COVERINGS AT PROTESTS

Sections 118-120 of the Crime and Policing Bill will make it a criminal offence to wear a face covering at designated protests, and police will have the power to arrest or fine anyone breaching this condition.

This would infringe on everybody’s right to decide how we protect ourselves when protesting. The lack of adequate safeguards in the Bill will particularly impact anyone who has to wear a face covering for health, religious, or privacy reasons. This could result in Muslim women, disabled people, and political dissidents being criminalised for attending protests with face coverings, and will have to prove their exemptions in court, rather than avoiding arrest in the first place.

Police already have far-reaching powers when it comes to protests, including the ability to require people to remove items if they believe they’re being used to hide their identity.

Demos polling shows that 86% of people believe everyone has the right to voice their opinion and raise awareness of issues. The Crime and Policing Bill will strip this right away from those who can only protest safely with a face covering.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part Amendments to clause remove Clauses 118-120 to scrap face covering restrictions from the Crime and Policing Bill.

BANNING PROTESTS OUTSIDE PLACES OF WORSHIP

Section 124 of the Bill also proposes giving the police powers to restrict protests ‘in the vicinity’ of places of worship.

Police already have the power to restrict protests based on their intention; this prevents genuine harm or disruption to religious communities. This new clause would instead ban protests based on the fact there is a place of worship nearby, regardless of intention, with the only criteria being that these protests could be considered ‘intimidating’.

This is an incredibly low threshold that could capture almost any protest in towns or cities across the country. Urban areas such as Westminster in Central London sees regular large-scale demonstrations outside Parliament. This entire area could now be restricted due to the numerous places of worship nearby, with no requirement to prove they are being targeted by protests.

This law risks targeting specific protest movements, from Pride marches to political demonstrations, without any evidence of religious discrimination or harassment. While the right to worship must be upheld, restricting demonstrations in this way could conflate safety concerns with our fundamental right to protest.

This law should have clear criteria that’s not open to interpretation and should only be allowed to apply when there’s a clear intent from protesters to intimidate nearby places of worship.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part amendment to remove Clause 124 from the Bill. If you are not comfortable supporting stand part, please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Blower’s Amendments 371A–371F to narrow and tighten Clause 124 by introducing clearer safeguards and limiting its scope.

FURTHER PROTEST RESTRICTIONS

Lord Davies of Gower has tabled amendments which would further restrict protest by enabling longer-lasting area bans, making it harder to organise processions quickly in response to current events, and removing the vital “reasonable excuse” safeguard that helps prevent the criminalisation of peaceful protest. Please VOTE AGAINST Amendments 382A–D.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I urge you to use your position in the House of Lords to protect our hard-won rights and freedoms. Please attend the vote on 7 January 2026 and oppose these dangerous plans.

{user_data~First Name} {user_data~Surname}
{user_data~Preferred Address Line 1}
{user_data~Preferred City}
{user_data~Preferred Postcode}

Lord

Ponsonby

House of Lords

Dear Lord Ponsonby

Proposals in the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill will block countless people from exercising their fundamental right to protest, risk criminalising marginalised communities, and prevent meaningful change.

I am writing to ask that you vote for amendments in the House of Lords that would safeguard our right to stand up for issues we care about.

RESTRICTING REPEAT PROTESTS

Protest has always been a part of British culture and tradition; our ability to do so is central to a healthy, functioning democracy. But clause 372 of the Crime and Policing Bill would restrict this right by giving police the power ban repeat demonstrations in a designated area.

If this is voted into law, senior police officers must consider the “cumulative disruption” caused by previous – or even future – protests in the area as a reason to ban a demonstration, regardless of whether they were organised by the same people or focused on the same issues.

They would also decide what area is restricted, with no clear rules on how big or small an area can be. This means we could see borough or city-wide bans on protests, simply because a different demonstration took place the week before.

This won't just impact frequent large-scale marches; it could restrict emergency demonstrations on issues of grave importance, or the right to organise counter protests.

Change is rarely achieved by a one-off demonstration outside Parliament; votes for women took nearly a century to achieve, as did a two-day weekend. Combined with other anti-protest measures in this Bill, banning repeat protests will have a chilling effect on how we can effectively make our voices heard and demand change.

Please VOTE AGAINST this amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill which would ban repeat demonstrations and stop people using their fundamental right to protest.

Lord Walney has also tabled an amendment which would push this “repeat protest” approach even further by creating new categories aimed at particular forms of recurring protest. This would widen the scope for pre-emptive restrictions and compound the risk that persistence itself is treated as grounds for shutting down lawful protest. 
 
Please VOTE AGAINST Government Amendment 372 and VOTE AGAINST Lord Walney’s Amendment 382E.

BANNING FACE COVERINGS AT PROTESTS

Sections 118-120 of the Crime and Policing Bill will make it a criminal offence to wear a face covering at designated protests, and police will have the power to arrest or fine anyone breaching this condition.

This would infringe on everybody’s right to decide how we protect ourselves when protesting. The lack of adequate safeguards in the Bill will particularly impact anyone who has to wear a face covering for health, religious, or privacy reasons. This could result in Muslim women, disabled people, and political dissidents being criminalised for attending protests with face coverings, and will have to prove their exemptions in court, rather than avoiding arrest in the first place.

Police already have far-reaching powers when it comes to protests, including the ability to require people to remove items if they believe they’re being used to hide their identity.

Demos polling shows that 86% of people believe everyone has the right to voice their opinion and raise awareness of issues. The Crime and Policing Bill will strip this right away from those who can only protest safely with a face covering.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part Amendments to clause remove Clauses 118-120 to scrap face covering restrictions from the Crime and Policing Bill.

BANNING PROTESTS OUTSIDE PLACES OF WORSHIP

Section 124 of the Bill also proposes giving the police powers to restrict protests ‘in the vicinity’ of places of worship.

Police already have the power to restrict protests based on their intention; this prevents genuine harm or disruption to religious communities. This new clause would instead ban protests based on the fact there is a place of worship nearby, regardless of intention, with the only criteria being that these protests could be considered ‘intimidating’.

This is an incredibly low threshold that could capture almost any protest in towns or cities across the country. Urban areas such as Westminster in Central London sees regular large-scale demonstrations outside Parliament. This entire area could now be restricted due to the numerous places of worship nearby, with no requirement to prove they are being targeted by protests.

This law risks targeting specific protest movements, from Pride marches to political demonstrations, without any evidence of religious discrimination or harassment. While the right to worship must be upheld, restricting demonstrations in this way could conflate safety concerns with our fundamental right to protest.

This law should have clear criteria that’s not open to interpretation and should only be allowed to apply when there’s a clear intent from protesters to intimidate nearby places of worship.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part amendment to remove Clause 124 from the Bill. If you are not comfortable supporting stand part, please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Blower’s Amendments 371A–371F to narrow and tighten Clause 124 by introducing clearer safeguards and limiting its scope.

FURTHER PROTEST RESTRICTIONS

Lord Davies of Gower has tabled amendments which would further restrict protest by enabling longer-lasting area bans, making it harder to organise processions quickly in response to current events, and removing the vital “reasonable excuse” safeguard that helps prevent the criminalisation of peaceful protest. Please VOTE AGAINST Amendments 382A–D.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I urge you to use your position in the House of Lords to protect our hard-won rights and freedoms. Please attend the vote on 7 January 2026 and oppose these dangerous plans.

{user_data~First Name} {user_data~Surname}
{user_data~Preferred Address Line 1}
{user_data~Preferred City}
{user_data~Preferred Postcode}

Baroness

Burt

House of Lords

Dear Baroness Burt

Proposals in the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill will block countless people from exercising their fundamental right to protest, risk criminalising marginalised communities, and prevent meaningful change.

I am writing to ask that you vote for amendments in the House of Lords that would safeguard our right to stand up for issues we care about.

RESTRICTING REPEAT PROTESTS

Protest has always been a part of British culture and tradition; our ability to do so is central to a healthy, functioning democracy. But clause 372 of the Crime and Policing Bill would restrict this right by giving police the power ban repeat demonstrations in a designated area.

If this is voted into law, senior police officers must consider the “cumulative disruption” caused by previous – or even future – protests in the area as a reason to ban a demonstration, regardless of whether they were organised by the same people or focused on the same issues.

They would also decide what area is restricted, with no clear rules on how big or small an area can be. This means we could see borough or city-wide bans on protests, simply because a different demonstration took place the week before.

This won't just impact frequent large-scale marches; it could restrict emergency demonstrations on issues of grave importance, or the right to organise counter protests.

Change is rarely achieved by a one-off demonstration outside Parliament; votes for women took nearly a century to achieve, as did a two-day weekend. Combined with other anti-protest measures in this Bill, banning repeat protests will have a chilling effect on how we can effectively make our voices heard and demand change.

Please VOTE AGAINST this amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill which would ban repeat demonstrations and stop people using their fundamental right to protest.

Lord Walney has also tabled an amendment which would push this “repeat protest” approach even further by creating new categories aimed at particular forms of recurring protest. This would widen the scope for pre-emptive restrictions and compound the risk that persistence itself is treated as grounds for shutting down lawful protest. 
 
Please VOTE AGAINST Government Amendment 372 and VOTE AGAINST Lord Walney’s Amendment 382E.

BANNING FACE COVERINGS AT PROTESTS

Sections 118-120 of the Crime and Policing Bill will make it a criminal offence to wear a face covering at designated protests, and police will have the power to arrest or fine anyone breaching this condition.

This would infringe on everybody’s right to decide how we protect ourselves when protesting. The lack of adequate safeguards in the Bill will particularly impact anyone who has to wear a face covering for health, religious, or privacy reasons. This could result in Muslim women, disabled people, and political dissidents being criminalised for attending protests with face coverings, and will have to prove their exemptions in court, rather than avoiding arrest in the first place.

Police already have far-reaching powers when it comes to protests, including the ability to require people to remove items if they believe they’re being used to hide their identity.

Demos polling shows that 86% of people believe everyone has the right to voice their opinion and raise awareness of issues. The Crime and Policing Bill will strip this right away from those who can only protest safely with a face covering.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part Amendments to clause remove Clauses 118-120 to scrap face covering restrictions from the Crime and Policing Bill.

BANNING PROTESTS OUTSIDE PLACES OF WORSHIP

Section 124 of the Bill also proposes giving the police powers to restrict protests ‘in the vicinity’ of places of worship.

Police already have the power to restrict protests based on their intention; this prevents genuine harm or disruption to religious communities. This new clause would instead ban protests based on the fact there is a place of worship nearby, regardless of intention, with the only criteria being that these protests could be considered ‘intimidating’.

This is an incredibly low threshold that could capture almost any protest in towns or cities across the country. Urban areas such as Westminster in Central London sees regular large-scale demonstrations outside Parliament. This entire area could now be restricted due to the numerous places of worship nearby, with no requirement to prove they are being targeted by protests.

This law risks targeting specific protest movements, from Pride marches to political demonstrations, without any evidence of religious discrimination or harassment. While the right to worship must be upheld, restricting demonstrations in this way could conflate safety concerns with our fundamental right to protest.

This law should have clear criteria that’s not open to interpretation and should only be allowed to apply when there’s a clear intent from protesters to intimidate nearby places of worship.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part amendment to remove Clause 124 from the Bill. If you are not comfortable supporting stand part, please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Blower’s Amendments 371A–371F to narrow and tighten Clause 124 by introducing clearer safeguards and limiting its scope.

FURTHER PROTEST RESTRICTIONS

Lord Davies of Gower has tabled amendments which would further restrict protest by enabling longer-lasting area bans, making it harder to organise processions quickly in response to current events, and removing the vital “reasonable excuse” safeguard that helps prevent the criminalisation of peaceful protest. Please VOTE AGAINST Amendments 382A–D.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I urge you to use your position in the House of Lords to protect our hard-won rights and freedoms. Please attend the vote on 7 January 2026 and oppose these dangerous plans.

{user_data~First Name} {user_data~Surname}
{user_data~Preferred Address Line 1}
{user_data~Preferred City}
{user_data~Preferred Postcode}

Baroness

Lister

of Burtersett

House of Lords

Dear Baroness Lister of Burtersett

Proposals in the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill will block countless people from exercising their fundamental right to protest, risk criminalising marginalised communities, and prevent meaningful change.

I am writing to ask that you vote for amendments in the House of Lords that would safeguard our right to stand up for issues we care about.

RESTRICTING REPEAT PROTESTS

Protest has always been a part of British culture and tradition; our ability to do so is central to a healthy, functioning democracy. But clause 372 of the Crime and Policing Bill would restrict this right by giving police the power ban repeat demonstrations in a designated area.

If this is voted into law, senior police officers must consider the “cumulative disruption” caused by previous – or even future – protests in the area as a reason to ban a demonstration, regardless of whether they were organised by the same people or focused on the same issues.

They would also decide what area is restricted, with no clear rules on how big or small an area can be. This means we could see borough or city-wide bans on protests, simply because a different demonstration took place the week before.

This won't just impact frequent large-scale marches; it could restrict emergency demonstrations on issues of grave importance, or the right to organise counter protests.

Change is rarely achieved by a one-off demonstration outside Parliament; votes for women took nearly a century to achieve, as did a two-day weekend. Combined with other anti-protest measures in this Bill, banning repeat protests will have a chilling effect on how we can effectively make our voices heard and demand change.

Please VOTE AGAINST this amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill which would ban repeat demonstrations and stop people using their fundamental right to protest.

Lord Walney has also tabled an amendment which would push this “repeat protest” approach even further by creating new categories aimed at particular forms of recurring protest. This would widen the scope for pre-emptive restrictions and compound the risk that persistence itself is treated as grounds for shutting down lawful protest. 
 
Please VOTE AGAINST Government Amendment 372 and VOTE AGAINST Lord Walney’s Amendment 382E.

BANNING FACE COVERINGS AT PROTESTS

Sections 118-120 of the Crime and Policing Bill will make it a criminal offence to wear a face covering at designated protests, and police will have the power to arrest or fine anyone breaching this condition.

This would infringe on everybody’s right to decide how we protect ourselves when protesting. The lack of adequate safeguards in the Bill will particularly impact anyone who has to wear a face covering for health, religious, or privacy reasons. This could result in Muslim women, disabled people, and political dissidents being criminalised for attending protests with face coverings, and will have to prove their exemptions in court, rather than avoiding arrest in the first place.

Police already have far-reaching powers when it comes to protests, including the ability to require people to remove items if they believe they’re being used to hide their identity.

Demos polling shows that 86% of people believe everyone has the right to voice their opinion and raise awareness of issues. The Crime and Policing Bill will strip this right away from those who can only protest safely with a face covering.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part Amendments to clause remove Clauses 118-120 to scrap face covering restrictions from the Crime and Policing Bill.

BANNING PROTESTS OUTSIDE PLACES OF WORSHIP

Section 124 of the Bill also proposes giving the police powers to restrict protests ‘in the vicinity’ of places of worship.

Police already have the power to restrict protests based on their intention; this prevents genuine harm or disruption to religious communities. This new clause would instead ban protests based on the fact there is a place of worship nearby, regardless of intention, with the only criteria being that these protests could be considered ‘intimidating’.

This is an incredibly low threshold that could capture almost any protest in towns or cities across the country. Urban areas such as Westminster in Central London sees regular large-scale demonstrations outside Parliament. This entire area could now be restricted due to the numerous places of worship nearby, with no requirement to prove they are being targeted by protests.

This law risks targeting specific protest movements, from Pride marches to political demonstrations, without any evidence of religious discrimination or harassment. While the right to worship must be upheld, restricting demonstrations in this way could conflate safety concerns with our fundamental right to protest.

This law should have clear criteria that’s not open to interpretation and should only be allowed to apply when there’s a clear intent from protesters to intimidate nearby places of worship.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part amendment to remove Clause 124 from the Bill. If you are not comfortable supporting stand part, please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Blower’s Amendments 371A–371F to narrow and tighten Clause 124 by introducing clearer safeguards and limiting its scope.

FURTHER PROTEST RESTRICTIONS

Lord Davies of Gower has tabled amendments which would further restrict protest by enabling longer-lasting area bans, making it harder to organise processions quickly in response to current events, and removing the vital “reasonable excuse” safeguard that helps prevent the criminalisation of peaceful protest. Please VOTE AGAINST Amendments 382A–D.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I urge you to use your position in the House of Lords to protect our hard-won rights and freedoms. Please attend the vote on 7 January 2026 and oppose these dangerous plans.

{user_data~First Name} {user_data~Surname}
{user_data~Preferred Address Line 1}
{user_data~Preferred City}
{user_data~Preferred Postcode}

Lord

Alfred

Dubs

House of Lords

Dear Lord Dubs

Proposals in the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill will block countless people from exercising their fundamental right to protest, risk criminalising marginalised communities, and prevent meaningful change.

I am writing to ask that you vote for amendments in the House of Lords that would safeguard our right to stand up for issues we care about.

RESTRICTING REPEAT PROTESTS

Protest has always been a part of British culture and tradition; our ability to do so is central to a healthy, functioning democracy. But clause 372 of the Crime and Policing Bill would restrict this right by giving police the power ban repeat demonstrations in a designated area.

If this is voted into law, senior police officers must consider the “cumulative disruption” caused by previous – or even future – protests in the area as a reason to ban a demonstration, regardless of whether they were organised by the same people or focused on the same issues.

They would also decide what area is restricted, with no clear rules on how big or small an area can be. This means we could see borough or city-wide bans on protests, simply because a different demonstration took place the week before.

This won't just impact frequent large-scale marches; it could restrict emergency demonstrations on issues of grave importance, or the right to organise counter protests.

Change is rarely achieved by a one-off demonstration outside Parliament; votes for women took nearly a century to achieve, as did a two-day weekend. Combined with other anti-protest measures in this Bill, banning repeat protests will have a chilling effect on how we can effectively make our voices heard and demand change.

Please VOTE AGAINST this amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill which would ban repeat demonstrations and stop people using their fundamental right to protest.

Lord Walney has also tabled an amendment which would push this “repeat protest” approach even further by creating new categories aimed at particular forms of recurring protest. This would widen the scope for pre-emptive restrictions and compound the risk that persistence itself is treated as grounds for shutting down lawful protest. 
 
Please VOTE AGAINST Government Amendment 372 and VOTE AGAINST Lord Walney’s Amendment 382E.

BANNING FACE COVERINGS AT PROTESTS

Sections 118-120 of the Crime and Policing Bill will make it a criminal offence to wear a face covering at designated protests, and police will have the power to arrest or fine anyone breaching this condition.

This would infringe on everybody’s right to decide how we protect ourselves when protesting. The lack of adequate safeguards in the Bill will particularly impact anyone who has to wear a face covering for health, religious, or privacy reasons. This could result in Muslim women, disabled people, and political dissidents being criminalised for attending protests with face coverings, and will have to prove their exemptions in court, rather than avoiding arrest in the first place.

Police already have far-reaching powers when it comes to protests, including the ability to require people to remove items if they believe they’re being used to hide their identity.

Demos polling shows that 86% of people believe everyone has the right to voice their opinion and raise awareness of issues. The Crime and Policing Bill will strip this right away from those who can only protest safely with a face covering.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part Amendments to clause remove Clauses 118-120 to scrap face covering restrictions from the Crime and Policing Bill.

BANNING PROTESTS OUTSIDE PLACES OF WORSHIP

Section 124 of the Bill also proposes giving the police powers to restrict protests ‘in the vicinity’ of places of worship.

Police already have the power to restrict protests based on their intention; this prevents genuine harm or disruption to religious communities. This new clause would instead ban protests based on the fact there is a place of worship nearby, regardless of intention, with the only criteria being that these protests could be considered ‘intimidating’.

This is an incredibly low threshold that could capture almost any protest in towns or cities across the country. Urban areas such as Westminster in Central London sees regular large-scale demonstrations outside Parliament. This entire area could now be restricted due to the numerous places of worship nearby, with no requirement to prove they are being targeted by protests.

This law risks targeting specific protest movements, from Pride marches to political demonstrations, without any evidence of religious discrimination or harassment. While the right to worship must be upheld, restricting demonstrations in this way could conflate safety concerns with our fundamental right to protest.

This law should have clear criteria that’s not open to interpretation and should only be allowed to apply when there’s a clear intent from protesters to intimidate nearby places of worship.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part amendment to remove Clause 124 from the Bill. If you are not comfortable supporting stand part, please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Blower’s Amendments 371A–371F to narrow and tighten Clause 124 by introducing clearer safeguards and limiting its scope.

FURTHER PROTEST RESTRICTIONS

Lord Davies of Gower has tabled amendments which would further restrict protest by enabling longer-lasting area bans, making it harder to organise processions quickly in response to current events, and removing the vital “reasonable excuse” safeguard that helps prevent the criminalisation of peaceful protest. Please VOTE AGAINST Amendments 382A–D.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I urge you to use your position in the House of Lords to protect our hard-won rights and freedoms. Please attend the vote on 7 January 2026 and oppose these dangerous plans.

{user_data~First Name} {user_data~Surname}
{user_data~Preferred Address Line 1}
{user_data~Preferred City}
{user_data~Preferred Postcode}

Baroness

Helen

Kennedy of the Shaws

House of Lords

Dear Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws

Proposals in the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill will block countless people from exercising their fundamental right to protest, risk criminalising marginalised communities, and prevent meaningful change.

I am writing to ask that you vote for amendments in the House of Lords that would safeguard our right to stand up for issues we care about.

RESTRICTING REPEAT PROTESTS

Protest has always been a part of British culture and tradition; our ability to do so is central to a healthy, functioning democracy. But clause 372 of the Crime and Policing Bill would restrict this right by giving police the power ban repeat demonstrations in a designated area.

If this is voted into law, senior police officers must consider the “cumulative disruption” caused by previous – or even future – protests in the area as a reason to ban a demonstration, regardless of whether they were organised by the same people or focused on the same issues.

They would also decide what area is restricted, with no clear rules on how big or small an area can be. This means we could see borough or city-wide bans on protests, simply because a different demonstration took place the week before.

This won't just impact frequent large-scale marches; it could restrict emergency demonstrations on issues of grave importance, or the right to organise counter protests.

Change is rarely achieved by a one-off demonstration outside Parliament; votes for women took nearly a century to achieve, as did a two-day weekend. Combined with other anti-protest measures in this Bill, banning repeat protests will have a chilling effect on how we can effectively make our voices heard and demand change.

Please VOTE AGAINST this amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill which would ban repeat demonstrations and stop people using their fundamental right to protest.

Lord Walney has also tabled an amendment which would push this “repeat protest” approach even further by creating new categories aimed at particular forms of recurring protest. This would widen the scope for pre-emptive restrictions and compound the risk that persistence itself is treated as grounds for shutting down lawful protest. 
 
Please VOTE AGAINST Government Amendment 372 and VOTE AGAINST Lord Walney’s Amendment 382E.

BANNING FACE COVERINGS AT PROTESTS

Sections 118-120 of the Crime and Policing Bill will make it a criminal offence to wear a face covering at designated protests, and police will have the power to arrest or fine anyone breaching this condition.

This would infringe on everybody’s right to decide how we protect ourselves when protesting. The lack of adequate safeguards in the Bill will particularly impact anyone who has to wear a face covering for health, religious, or privacy reasons. This could result in Muslim women, disabled people, and political dissidents being criminalised for attending protests with face coverings, and will have to prove their exemptions in court, rather than avoiding arrest in the first place.

Police already have far-reaching powers when it comes to protests, including the ability to require people to remove items if they believe they’re being used to hide their identity.

Demos polling shows that 86% of people believe everyone has the right to voice their opinion and raise awareness of issues. The Crime and Policing Bill will strip this right away from those who can only protest safely with a face covering.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part Amendments to clause remove Clauses 118-120 to scrap face covering restrictions from the Crime and Policing Bill.

BANNING PROTESTS OUTSIDE PLACES OF WORSHIP

Section 124 of the Bill also proposes giving the police powers to restrict protests ‘in the vicinity’ of places of worship.

Police already have the power to restrict protests based on their intention; this prevents genuine harm or disruption to religious communities. This new clause would instead ban protests based on the fact there is a place of worship nearby, regardless of intention, with the only criteria being that these protests could be considered ‘intimidating’.

This is an incredibly low threshold that could capture almost any protest in towns or cities across the country. Urban areas such as Westminster in Central London sees regular large-scale demonstrations outside Parliament. This entire area could now be restricted due to the numerous places of worship nearby, with no requirement to prove they are being targeted by protests.

This law risks targeting specific protest movements, from Pride marches to political demonstrations, without any evidence of religious discrimination or harassment. While the right to worship must be upheld, restricting demonstrations in this way could conflate safety concerns with our fundamental right to protest.

This law should have clear criteria that’s not open to interpretation and should only be allowed to apply when there’s a clear intent from protesters to intimidate nearby places of worship.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part amendment to remove Clause 124 from the Bill. If you are not comfortable supporting stand part, please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Blower’s Amendments 371A–371F to narrow and tighten Clause 124 by introducing clearer safeguards and limiting its scope.

FURTHER PROTEST RESTRICTIONS

Lord Davies of Gower has tabled amendments which would further restrict protest by enabling longer-lasting area bans, making it harder to organise processions quickly in response to current events, and removing the vital “reasonable excuse” safeguard that helps prevent the criminalisation of peaceful protest. Please VOTE AGAINST Amendments 382A–D.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I urge you to use your position in the House of Lords to protect our hard-won rights and freedoms. Please attend the vote on 7 January 2026 and oppose these dangerous plans.

{user_data~First Name} {user_data~Surname}
{user_data~Preferred Address Line 1}
{user_data~Preferred City}
{user_data~Preferred Postcode}

Lord

David

Alton of Liverpool

House of Lords

Dear Lord Alton of Liverpool

Proposals in the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill will block countless people from exercising their fundamental right to protest, risk criminalising marginalised communities, and prevent meaningful change.

I am writing to ask that you vote for amendments in the House of Lords that would safeguard our right to stand up for issues we care about.

RESTRICTING REPEAT PROTESTS

Protest has always been a part of British culture and tradition; our ability to do so is central to a healthy, functioning democracy. But clause 372 of the Crime and Policing Bill would restrict this right by giving police the power ban repeat demonstrations in a designated area.

If this is voted into law, senior police officers must consider the “cumulative disruption” caused by previous – or even future – protests in the area as a reason to ban a demonstration, regardless of whether they were organised by the same people or focused on the same issues.

They would also decide what area is restricted, with no clear rules on how big or small an area can be. This means we could see borough or city-wide bans on protests, simply because a different demonstration took place the week before.

This won't just impact frequent large-scale marches; it could restrict emergency demonstrations on issues of grave importance, or the right to organise counter protests.

Change is rarely achieved by a one-off demonstration outside Parliament; votes for women took nearly a century to achieve, as did a two-day weekend. Combined with other anti-protest measures in this Bill, banning repeat protests will have a chilling effect on how we can effectively make our voices heard and demand change.

Please VOTE AGAINST this amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill which would ban repeat demonstrations and stop people using their fundamental right to protest.

Lord Walney has also tabled an amendment which would push this “repeat protest” approach even further by creating new categories aimed at particular forms of recurring protest. This would widen the scope for pre-emptive restrictions and compound the risk that persistence itself is treated as grounds for shutting down lawful protest. 
 
Please VOTE AGAINST Government Amendment 372 and VOTE AGAINST Lord Walney’s Amendment 382E.

BANNING FACE COVERINGS AT PROTESTS

Sections 118-120 of the Crime and Policing Bill will make it a criminal offence to wear a face covering at designated protests, and police will have the power to arrest or fine anyone breaching this condition.

This would infringe on everybody’s right to decide how we protect ourselves when protesting. The lack of adequate safeguards in the Bill will particularly impact anyone who has to wear a face covering for health, religious, or privacy reasons. This could result in Muslim women, disabled people, and political dissidents being criminalised for attending protests with face coverings, and will have to prove their exemptions in court, rather than avoiding arrest in the first place.

Police already have far-reaching powers when it comes to protests, including the ability to require people to remove items if they believe they’re being used to hide their identity.

Demos polling shows that 86% of people believe everyone has the right to voice their opinion and raise awareness of issues. The Crime and Policing Bill will strip this right away from those who can only protest safely with a face covering.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part Amendments to clause remove Clauses 118-120 to scrap face covering restrictions from the Crime and Policing Bill.

BANNING PROTESTS OUTSIDE PLACES OF WORSHIP

Section 124 of the Bill also proposes giving the police powers to restrict protests ‘in the vicinity’ of places of worship.

Police already have the power to restrict protests based on their intention; this prevents genuine harm or disruption to religious communities. This new clause would instead ban protests based on the fact there is a place of worship nearby, regardless of intention, with the only criteria being that these protests could be considered ‘intimidating’.

This is an incredibly low threshold that could capture almost any protest in towns or cities across the country. Urban areas such as Westminster in Central London sees regular large-scale demonstrations outside Parliament. This entire area could now be restricted due to the numerous places of worship nearby, with no requirement to prove they are being targeted by protests.

This law risks targeting specific protest movements, from Pride marches to political demonstrations, without any evidence of religious discrimination or harassment. While the right to worship must be upheld, restricting demonstrations in this way could conflate safety concerns with our fundamental right to protest.

This law should have clear criteria that’s not open to interpretation and should only be allowed to apply when there’s a clear intent from protesters to intimidate nearby places of worship.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part amendment to remove Clause 124 from the Bill. If you are not comfortable supporting stand part, please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Blower’s Amendments 371A–371F to narrow and tighten Clause 124 by introducing clearer safeguards and limiting its scope.

FURTHER PROTEST RESTRICTIONS

Lord Davies of Gower has tabled amendments which would further restrict protest by enabling longer-lasting area bans, making it harder to organise processions quickly in response to current events, and removing the vital “reasonable excuse” safeguard that helps prevent the criminalisation of peaceful protest. Please VOTE AGAINST Amendments 382A–D.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I urge you to use your position in the House of Lords to protect our hard-won rights and freedoms. Please attend the vote on 7 January 2026 and oppose these dangerous plans.

{user_data~First Name} {user_data~Surname}
{user_data~Preferred Address Line 1}
{user_data~Preferred City}
{user_data~Preferred Postcode}

Baroness

Natalie

Bennett of Manor Castle

House of Lords

Dear Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle

Proposals in the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill will block countless people from exercising their fundamental right to protest, risk criminalising marginalised communities, and prevent meaningful change.

I am writing to ask that you vote for amendments in the House of Lords that would safeguard our right to stand up for issues we care about.

RESTRICTING REPEAT PROTESTS

Protest has always been a part of British culture and tradition; our ability to do so is central to a healthy, functioning democracy. But clause 372 of the Crime and Policing Bill would restrict this right by giving police the power ban repeat demonstrations in a designated area.

If this is voted into law, senior police officers must consider the “cumulative disruption” caused by previous – or even future – protests in the area as a reason to ban a demonstration, regardless of whether they were organised by the same people or focused on the same issues.

They would also decide what area is restricted, with no clear rules on how big or small an area can be. This means we could see borough or city-wide bans on protests, simply because a different demonstration took place the week before.

This won't just impact frequent large-scale marches; it could restrict emergency demonstrations on issues of grave importance, or the right to organise counter protests.

Change is rarely achieved by a one-off demonstration outside Parliament; votes for women took nearly a century to achieve, as did a two-day weekend. Combined with other anti-protest measures in this Bill, banning repeat protests will have a chilling effect on how we can effectively make our voices heard and demand change.

Please VOTE AGAINST this amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill which would ban repeat demonstrations and stop people using their fundamental right to protest.

Lord Walney has also tabled an amendment which would push this “repeat protest” approach even further by creating new categories aimed at particular forms of recurring protest. This would widen the scope for pre-emptive restrictions and compound the risk that persistence itself is treated as grounds for shutting down lawful protest. 
 
Please VOTE AGAINST Government Amendment 372 and VOTE AGAINST Lord Walney’s Amendment 382E.

BANNING FACE COVERINGS AT PROTESTS

Sections 118-120 of the Crime and Policing Bill will make it a criminal offence to wear a face covering at designated protests, and police will have the power to arrest or fine anyone breaching this condition.

This would infringe on everybody’s right to decide how we protect ourselves when protesting. The lack of adequate safeguards in the Bill will particularly impact anyone who has to wear a face covering for health, religious, or privacy reasons. This could result in Muslim women, disabled people, and political dissidents being criminalised for attending protests with face coverings, and will have to prove their exemptions in court, rather than avoiding arrest in the first place.

Police already have far-reaching powers when it comes to protests, including the ability to require people to remove items if they believe they’re being used to hide their identity.

Demos polling shows that 86% of people believe everyone has the right to voice their opinion and raise awareness of issues. The Crime and Policing Bill will strip this right away from those who can only protest safely with a face covering.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part Amendments to clause remove Clauses 118-120 to scrap face covering restrictions from the Crime and Policing Bill.

BANNING PROTESTS OUTSIDE PLACES OF WORSHIP

Section 124 of the Bill also proposes giving the police powers to restrict protests ‘in the vicinity’ of places of worship.

Police already have the power to restrict protests based on their intention; this prevents genuine harm or disruption to religious communities. This new clause would instead ban protests based on the fact there is a place of worship nearby, regardless of intention, with the only criteria being that these protests could be considered ‘intimidating’.

This is an incredibly low threshold that could capture almost any protest in towns or cities across the country. Urban areas such as Westminster in Central London sees regular large-scale demonstrations outside Parliament. This entire area could now be restricted due to the numerous places of worship nearby, with no requirement to prove they are being targeted by protests.

This law risks targeting specific protest movements, from Pride marches to political demonstrations, without any evidence of religious discrimination or harassment. While the right to worship must be upheld, restricting demonstrations in this way could conflate safety concerns with our fundamental right to protest.

This law should have clear criteria that’s not open to interpretation and should only be allowed to apply when there’s a clear intent from protesters to intimidate nearby places of worship.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part amendment to remove Clause 124 from the Bill. If you are not comfortable supporting stand part, please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Blower’s Amendments 371A–371F to narrow and tighten Clause 124 by introducing clearer safeguards and limiting its scope.

FURTHER PROTEST RESTRICTIONS

Lord Davies of Gower has tabled amendments which would further restrict protest by enabling longer-lasting area bans, making it harder to organise processions quickly in response to current events, and removing the vital “reasonable excuse” safeguard that helps prevent the criminalisation of peaceful protest. Please VOTE AGAINST Amendments 382A–D.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I urge you to use your position in the House of Lords to protect our hard-won rights and freedoms. Please attend the vote on 7 January 2026 and oppose these dangerous plans.

{user_data~First Name} {user_data~Surname}
{user_data~Preferred Address Line 1}
{user_data~Preferred City}
{user_data~Preferred Postcode}

Baroness

Frances

D'Souza

House of Lords

Dear Baroness D'Souza

Proposals in the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill will block countless people from exercising their fundamental right to protest, risk criminalising marginalised communities, and prevent meaningful change.

I am writing to ask that you vote for amendments in the House of Lords that would safeguard our right to stand up for issues we care about.

RESTRICTING REPEAT PROTESTS

Protest has always been a part of British culture and tradition; our ability to do so is central to a healthy, functioning democracy. But clause 372 of the Crime and Policing Bill would restrict this right by giving police the power ban repeat demonstrations in a designated area.

If this is voted into law, senior police officers must consider the “cumulative disruption” caused by previous – or even future – protests in the area as a reason to ban a demonstration, regardless of whether they were organised by the same people or focused on the same issues.

They would also decide what area is restricted, with no clear rules on how big or small an area can be. This means we could see borough or city-wide bans on protests, simply because a different demonstration took place the week before.

This won't just impact frequent large-scale marches; it could restrict emergency demonstrations on issues of grave importance, or the right to organise counter protests.

Change is rarely achieved by a one-off demonstration outside Parliament; votes for women took nearly a century to achieve, as did a two-day weekend. Combined with other anti-protest measures in this Bill, banning repeat protests will have a chilling effect on how we can effectively make our voices heard and demand change.

Please VOTE AGAINST this amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill which would ban repeat demonstrations and stop people using their fundamental right to protest.

Lord Walney has also tabled an amendment which would push this “repeat protest” approach even further by creating new categories aimed at particular forms of recurring protest. This would widen the scope for pre-emptive restrictions and compound the risk that persistence itself is treated as grounds for shutting down lawful protest. 
 
Please VOTE AGAINST Government Amendment 372 and VOTE AGAINST Lord Walney’s Amendment 382E.

BANNING FACE COVERINGS AT PROTESTS

Sections 118-120 of the Crime and Policing Bill will make it a criminal offence to wear a face covering at designated protests, and police will have the power to arrest or fine anyone breaching this condition.

This would infringe on everybody’s right to decide how we protect ourselves when protesting. The lack of adequate safeguards in the Bill will particularly impact anyone who has to wear a face covering for health, religious, or privacy reasons. This could result in Muslim women, disabled people, and political dissidents being criminalised for attending protests with face coverings, and will have to prove their exemptions in court, rather than avoiding arrest in the first place.

Police already have far-reaching powers when it comes to protests, including the ability to require people to remove items if they believe they’re being used to hide their identity.

Demos polling shows that 86% of people believe everyone has the right to voice their opinion and raise awareness of issues. The Crime and Policing Bill will strip this right away from those who can only protest safely with a face covering.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part Amendments to clause remove Clauses 118-120 to scrap face covering restrictions from the Crime and Policing Bill.

BANNING PROTESTS OUTSIDE PLACES OF WORSHIP

Section 124 of the Bill also proposes giving the police powers to restrict protests ‘in the vicinity’ of places of worship.

Police already have the power to restrict protests based on their intention; this prevents genuine harm or disruption to religious communities. This new clause would instead ban protests based on the fact there is a place of worship nearby, regardless of intention, with the only criteria being that these protests could be considered ‘intimidating’.

This is an incredibly low threshold that could capture almost any protest in towns or cities across the country. Urban areas such as Westminster in Central London sees regular large-scale demonstrations outside Parliament. This entire area could now be restricted due to the numerous places of worship nearby, with no requirement to prove they are being targeted by protests.

This law risks targeting specific protest movements, from Pride marches to political demonstrations, without any evidence of religious discrimination or harassment. While the right to worship must be upheld, restricting demonstrations in this way could conflate safety concerns with our fundamental right to protest.

This law should have clear criteria that’s not open to interpretation and should only be allowed to apply when there’s a clear intent from protesters to intimidate nearby places of worship.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part amendment to remove Clause 124 from the Bill. If you are not comfortable supporting stand part, please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Blower’s Amendments 371A–371F to narrow and tighten Clause 124 by introducing clearer safeguards and limiting its scope.

FURTHER PROTEST RESTRICTIONS

Lord Davies of Gower has tabled amendments which would further restrict protest by enabling longer-lasting area bans, making it harder to organise processions quickly in response to current events, and removing the vital “reasonable excuse” safeguard that helps prevent the criminalisation of peaceful protest. Please VOTE AGAINST Amendments 382A–D.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I urge you to use your position in the House of Lords to protect our hard-won rights and freedoms. Please attend the vote on 7 January 2026 and oppose these dangerous plans.

{user_data~First Name} {user_data~Surname}
{user_data~Preferred Address Line 1}
{user_data~Preferred City}
{user_data~Preferred Postcode}

Lord

Valerian

Freyberg

House of Lords

Dear Lord Freyberg

Proposals in the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill will block countless people from exercising their fundamental right to protest, risk criminalising marginalised communities, and prevent meaningful change.

I am writing to ask that you vote for amendments in the House of Lords that would safeguard our right to stand up for issues we care about.

RESTRICTING REPEAT PROTESTS

Protest has always been a part of British culture and tradition; our ability to do so is central to a healthy, functioning democracy. But clause 372 of the Crime and Policing Bill would restrict this right by giving police the power ban repeat demonstrations in a designated area.

If this is voted into law, senior police officers must consider the “cumulative disruption” caused by previous – or even future – protests in the area as a reason to ban a demonstration, regardless of whether they were organised by the same people or focused on the same issues.

They would also decide what area is restricted, with no clear rules on how big or small an area can be. This means we could see borough or city-wide bans on protests, simply because a different demonstration took place the week before.

This won't just impact frequent large-scale marches; it could restrict emergency demonstrations on issues of grave importance, or the right to organise counter protests.

Change is rarely achieved by a one-off demonstration outside Parliament; votes for women took nearly a century to achieve, as did a two-day weekend. Combined with other anti-protest measures in this Bill, banning repeat protests will have a chilling effect on how we can effectively make our voices heard and demand change.

Please VOTE AGAINST this amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill which would ban repeat demonstrations and stop people using their fundamental right to protest.

Lord Walney has also tabled an amendment which would push this “repeat protest” approach even further by creating new categories aimed at particular forms of recurring protest. This would widen the scope for pre-emptive restrictions and compound the risk that persistence itself is treated as grounds for shutting down lawful protest. 
 
Please VOTE AGAINST Government Amendment 372 and VOTE AGAINST Lord Walney’s Amendment 382E.

BANNING FACE COVERINGS AT PROTESTS

Sections 118-120 of the Crime and Policing Bill will make it a criminal offence to wear a face covering at designated protests, and police will have the power to arrest or fine anyone breaching this condition.

This would infringe on everybody’s right to decide how we protect ourselves when protesting. The lack of adequate safeguards in the Bill will particularly impact anyone who has to wear a face covering for health, religious, or privacy reasons. This could result in Muslim women, disabled people, and political dissidents being criminalised for attending protests with face coverings, and will have to prove their exemptions in court, rather than avoiding arrest in the first place.

Police already have far-reaching powers when it comes to protests, including the ability to require people to remove items if they believe they’re being used to hide their identity.

Demos polling shows that 86% of people believe everyone has the right to voice their opinion and raise awareness of issues. The Crime and Policing Bill will strip this right away from those who can only protest safely with a face covering.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part Amendments to clause remove Clauses 118-120 to scrap face covering restrictions from the Crime and Policing Bill.

BANNING PROTESTS OUTSIDE PLACES OF WORSHIP

Section 124 of the Bill also proposes giving the police powers to restrict protests ‘in the vicinity’ of places of worship.

Police already have the power to restrict protests based on their intention; this prevents genuine harm or disruption to religious communities. This new clause would instead ban protests based on the fact there is a place of worship nearby, regardless of intention, with the only criteria being that these protests could be considered ‘intimidating’.

This is an incredibly low threshold that could capture almost any protest in towns or cities across the country. Urban areas such as Westminster in Central London sees regular large-scale demonstrations outside Parliament. This entire area could now be restricted due to the numerous places of worship nearby, with no requirement to prove they are being targeted by protests.

This law risks targeting specific protest movements, from Pride marches to political demonstrations, without any evidence of religious discrimination or harassment. While the right to worship must be upheld, restricting demonstrations in this way could conflate safety concerns with our fundamental right to protest.

This law should have clear criteria that’s not open to interpretation and should only be allowed to apply when there’s a clear intent from protesters to intimidate nearby places of worship.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part amendment to remove Clause 124 from the Bill. If you are not comfortable supporting stand part, please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Blower’s Amendments 371A–371F to narrow and tighten Clause 124 by introducing clearer safeguards and limiting its scope.

FURTHER PROTEST RESTRICTIONS

Lord Davies of Gower has tabled amendments which would further restrict protest by enabling longer-lasting area bans, making it harder to organise processions quickly in response to current events, and removing the vital “reasonable excuse” safeguard that helps prevent the criminalisation of peaceful protest. Please VOTE AGAINST Amendments 382A–D.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I urge you to use your position in the House of Lords to protect our hard-won rights and freedoms. Please attend the vote on 7 January 2026 and oppose these dangerous plans.

{user_data~First Name} {user_data~Surname}
{user_data~Preferred Address Line 1}
{user_data~Preferred City}
{user_data~Preferred Postcode}

Lord

Timothy

Clement-Jones

House of Lords

Dear Lord Clement-Jones

Proposals in the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill will block countless people from exercising their fundamental right to protest, risk criminalising marginalised communities, and prevent meaningful change.

I am writing to ask that you vote for amendments in the House of Lords that would safeguard our right to stand up for issues we care about.

RESTRICTING REPEAT PROTESTS

Protest has always been a part of British culture and tradition; our ability to do so is central to a healthy, functioning democracy. But clause 372 of the Crime and Policing Bill would restrict this right by giving police the power ban repeat demonstrations in a designated area.

If this is voted into law, senior police officers must consider the “cumulative disruption” caused by previous – or even future – protests in the area as a reason to ban a demonstration, regardless of whether they were organised by the same people or focused on the same issues.

They would also decide what area is restricted, with no clear rules on how big or small an area can be. This means we could see borough or city-wide bans on protests, simply because a different demonstration took place the week before.

This won't just impact frequent large-scale marches; it could restrict emergency demonstrations on issues of grave importance, or the right to organise counter protests.

Change is rarely achieved by a one-off demonstration outside Parliament; votes for women took nearly a century to achieve, as did a two-day weekend. Combined with other anti-protest measures in this Bill, banning repeat protests will have a chilling effect on how we can effectively make our voices heard and demand change.

Please VOTE AGAINST this amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill which would ban repeat demonstrations and stop people using their fundamental right to protest.

Lord Walney has also tabled an amendment which would push this “repeat protest” approach even further by creating new categories aimed at particular forms of recurring protest. This would widen the scope for pre-emptive restrictions and compound the risk that persistence itself is treated as grounds for shutting down lawful protest. 
 
Please VOTE AGAINST Government Amendment 372 and VOTE AGAINST Lord Walney’s Amendment 382E.

BANNING FACE COVERINGS AT PROTESTS

Sections 118-120 of the Crime and Policing Bill will make it a criminal offence to wear a face covering at designated protests, and police will have the power to arrest or fine anyone breaching this condition.

This would infringe on everybody’s right to decide how we protect ourselves when protesting. The lack of adequate safeguards in the Bill will particularly impact anyone who has to wear a face covering for health, religious, or privacy reasons. This could result in Muslim women, disabled people, and political dissidents being criminalised for attending protests with face coverings, and will have to prove their exemptions in court, rather than avoiding arrest in the first place.

Police already have far-reaching powers when it comes to protests, including the ability to require people to remove items if they believe they’re being used to hide their identity.

Demos polling shows that 86% of people believe everyone has the right to voice their opinion and raise awareness of issues. The Crime and Policing Bill will strip this right away from those who can only protest safely with a face covering.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part Amendments to clause remove Clauses 118-120 to scrap face covering restrictions from the Crime and Policing Bill.

BANNING PROTESTS OUTSIDE PLACES OF WORSHIP

Section 124 of the Bill also proposes giving the police powers to restrict protests ‘in the vicinity’ of places of worship.

Police already have the power to restrict protests based on their intention; this prevents genuine harm or disruption to religious communities. This new clause would instead ban protests based on the fact there is a place of worship nearby, regardless of intention, with the only criteria being that these protests could be considered ‘intimidating’.

This is an incredibly low threshold that could capture almost any protest in towns or cities across the country. Urban areas such as Westminster in Central London sees regular large-scale demonstrations outside Parliament. This entire area could now be restricted due to the numerous places of worship nearby, with no requirement to prove they are being targeted by protests.

This law risks targeting specific protest movements, from Pride marches to political demonstrations, without any evidence of religious discrimination or harassment. While the right to worship must be upheld, restricting demonstrations in this way could conflate safety concerns with our fundamental right to protest.

This law should have clear criteria that’s not open to interpretation and should only be allowed to apply when there’s a clear intent from protesters to intimidate nearby places of worship.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part amendment to remove Clause 124 from the Bill. If you are not comfortable supporting stand part, please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Blower’s Amendments 371A–371F to narrow and tighten Clause 124 by introducing clearer safeguards and limiting its scope.

FURTHER PROTEST RESTRICTIONS

Lord Davies of Gower has tabled amendments which would further restrict protest by enabling longer-lasting area bans, making it harder to organise processions quickly in response to current events, and removing the vital “reasonable excuse” safeguard that helps prevent the criminalisation of peaceful protest. Please VOTE AGAINST Amendments 382A–D.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I urge you to use your position in the House of Lords to protect our hard-won rights and freedoms. Please attend the vote on 7 January 2026 and oppose these dangerous plans.

{user_data~First Name} {user_data~Surname}
{user_data~Preferred Address Line 1}
{user_data~Preferred City}
{user_data~Preferred Postcode}

Baroness

Susan

Miller

House of Lords

Dear Baroness Miller

Proposals in the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill will block countless people from exercising their fundamental right to protest, risk criminalising marginalised communities, and prevent meaningful change.

I am writing to ask that you vote for amendments in the House of Lords that would safeguard our right to stand up for issues we care about.

RESTRICTING REPEAT PROTESTS

Protest has always been a part of British culture and tradition; our ability to do so is central to a healthy, functioning democracy. But clause 372 of the Crime and Policing Bill would restrict this right by giving police the power ban repeat demonstrations in a designated area.

If this is voted into law, senior police officers must consider the “cumulative disruption” caused by previous – or even future – protests in the area as a reason to ban a demonstration, regardless of whether they were organised by the same people or focused on the same issues.

They would also decide what area is restricted, with no clear rules on how big or small an area can be. This means we could see borough or city-wide bans on protests, simply because a different demonstration took place the week before.

This won't just impact frequent large-scale marches; it could restrict emergency demonstrations on issues of grave importance, or the right to organise counter protests.

Change is rarely achieved by a one-off demonstration outside Parliament; votes for women took nearly a century to achieve, as did a two-day weekend. Combined with other anti-protest measures in this Bill, banning repeat protests will have a chilling effect on how we can effectively make our voices heard and demand change.

Please VOTE AGAINST this amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill which would ban repeat demonstrations and stop people using their fundamental right to protest.

Lord Walney has also tabled an amendment which would push this “repeat protest” approach even further by creating new categories aimed at particular forms of recurring protest. This would widen the scope for pre-emptive restrictions and compound the risk that persistence itself is treated as grounds for shutting down lawful protest. 
 
Please VOTE AGAINST Government Amendment 372 and VOTE AGAINST Lord Walney’s Amendment 382E.

BANNING FACE COVERINGS AT PROTESTS

Sections 118-120 of the Crime and Policing Bill will make it a criminal offence to wear a face covering at designated protests, and police will have the power to arrest or fine anyone breaching this condition.

This would infringe on everybody’s right to decide how we protect ourselves when protesting. The lack of adequate safeguards in the Bill will particularly impact anyone who has to wear a face covering for health, religious, or privacy reasons. This could result in Muslim women, disabled people, and political dissidents being criminalised for attending protests with face coverings, and will have to prove their exemptions in court, rather than avoiding arrest in the first place.

Police already have far-reaching powers when it comes to protests, including the ability to require people to remove items if they believe they’re being used to hide their identity.

Demos polling shows that 86% of people believe everyone has the right to voice their opinion and raise awareness of issues. The Crime and Policing Bill will strip this right away from those who can only protest safely with a face covering.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part Amendments to clause remove Clauses 118-120 to scrap face covering restrictions from the Crime and Policing Bill.

BANNING PROTESTS OUTSIDE PLACES OF WORSHIP

Section 124 of the Bill also proposes giving the police powers to restrict protests ‘in the vicinity’ of places of worship.

Police already have the power to restrict protests based on their intention; this prevents genuine harm or disruption to religious communities. This new clause would instead ban protests based on the fact there is a place of worship nearby, regardless of intention, with the only criteria being that these protests could be considered ‘intimidating’.

This is an incredibly low threshold that could capture almost any protest in towns or cities across the country. Urban areas such as Westminster in Central London sees regular large-scale demonstrations outside Parliament. This entire area could now be restricted due to the numerous places of worship nearby, with no requirement to prove they are being targeted by protests.

This law risks targeting specific protest movements, from Pride marches to political demonstrations, without any evidence of religious discrimination or harassment. While the right to worship must be upheld, restricting demonstrations in this way could conflate safety concerns with our fundamental right to protest.

This law should have clear criteria that’s not open to interpretation and should only be allowed to apply when there’s a clear intent from protesters to intimidate nearby places of worship.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part amendment to remove Clause 124 from the Bill. If you are not comfortable supporting stand part, please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Blower’s Amendments 371A–371F to narrow and tighten Clause 124 by introducing clearer safeguards and limiting its scope.

FURTHER PROTEST RESTRICTIONS

Lord Davies of Gower has tabled amendments which would further restrict protest by enabling longer-lasting area bans, making it harder to organise processions quickly in response to current events, and removing the vital “reasonable excuse” safeguard that helps prevent the criminalisation of peaceful protest. Please VOTE AGAINST Amendments 382A–D.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I urge you to use your position in the House of Lords to protect our hard-won rights and freedoms. Please attend the vote on 7 January 2026 and oppose these dangerous plans.

{user_data~First Name} {user_data~Surname}
{user_data~Preferred Address Line 1}
{user_data~Preferred City}
{user_data~Preferred Postcode}

Lord

Michael

Cashman

House of Lords

Dear Lord Cashman

Proposals in the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill will block countless people from exercising their fundamental right to protest, risk criminalising marginalised communities, and prevent meaningful change.

I am writing to ask that you vote for amendments in the House of Lords that would safeguard our right to stand up for issues we care about.

RESTRICTING REPEAT PROTESTS

Protest has always been a part of British culture and tradition; our ability to do so is central to a healthy, functioning democracy. But clause 372 of the Crime and Policing Bill would restrict this right by giving police the power ban repeat demonstrations in a designated area.

If this is voted into law, senior police officers must consider the “cumulative disruption” caused by previous – or even future – protests in the area as a reason to ban a demonstration, regardless of whether they were organised by the same people or focused on the same issues.

They would also decide what area is restricted, with no clear rules on how big or small an area can be. This means we could see borough or city-wide bans on protests, simply because a different demonstration took place the week before.

This won't just impact frequent large-scale marches; it could restrict emergency demonstrations on issues of grave importance, or the right to organise counter protests.

Change is rarely achieved by a one-off demonstration outside Parliament; votes for women took nearly a century to achieve, as did a two-day weekend. Combined with other anti-protest measures in this Bill, banning repeat protests will have a chilling effect on how we can effectively make our voices heard and demand change.

Please VOTE AGAINST this amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill which would ban repeat demonstrations and stop people using their fundamental right to protest.

Lord Walney has also tabled an amendment which would push this “repeat protest” approach even further by creating new categories aimed at particular forms of recurring protest. This would widen the scope for pre-emptive restrictions and compound the risk that persistence itself is treated as grounds for shutting down lawful protest. 
 
Please VOTE AGAINST Government Amendment 372 and VOTE AGAINST Lord Walney’s Amendment 382E.

BANNING FACE COVERINGS AT PROTESTS

Sections 118-120 of the Crime and Policing Bill will make it a criminal offence to wear a face covering at designated protests, and police will have the power to arrest or fine anyone breaching this condition.

This would infringe on everybody’s right to decide how we protect ourselves when protesting. The lack of adequate safeguards in the Bill will particularly impact anyone who has to wear a face covering for health, religious, or privacy reasons. This could result in Muslim women, disabled people, and political dissidents being criminalised for attending protests with face coverings, and will have to prove their exemptions in court, rather than avoiding arrest in the first place.

Police already have far-reaching powers when it comes to protests, including the ability to require people to remove items if they believe they’re being used to hide their identity.

Demos polling shows that 86% of people believe everyone has the right to voice their opinion and raise awareness of issues. The Crime and Policing Bill will strip this right away from those who can only protest safely with a face covering.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part Amendments to clause remove Clauses 118-120 to scrap face covering restrictions from the Crime and Policing Bill.

BANNING PROTESTS OUTSIDE PLACES OF WORSHIP

Section 124 of the Bill also proposes giving the police powers to restrict protests ‘in the vicinity’ of places of worship.

Police already have the power to restrict protests based on their intention; this prevents genuine harm or disruption to religious communities. This new clause would instead ban protests based on the fact there is a place of worship nearby, regardless of intention, with the only criteria being that these protests could be considered ‘intimidating’.

This is an incredibly low threshold that could capture almost any protest in towns or cities across the country. Urban areas such as Westminster in Central London sees regular large-scale demonstrations outside Parliament. This entire area could now be restricted due to the numerous places of worship nearby, with no requirement to prove they are being targeted by protests.

This law risks targeting specific protest movements, from Pride marches to political demonstrations, without any evidence of religious discrimination or harassment. While the right to worship must be upheld, restricting demonstrations in this way could conflate safety concerns with our fundamental right to protest.

This law should have clear criteria that’s not open to interpretation and should only be allowed to apply when there’s a clear intent from protesters to intimidate nearby places of worship.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part amendment to remove Clause 124 from the Bill. If you are not comfortable supporting stand part, please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Blower’s Amendments 371A–371F to narrow and tighten Clause 124 by introducing clearer safeguards and limiting its scope.

FURTHER PROTEST RESTRICTIONS

Lord Davies of Gower has tabled amendments which would further restrict protest by enabling longer-lasting area bans, making it harder to organise processions quickly in response to current events, and removing the vital “reasonable excuse” safeguard that helps prevent the criminalisation of peaceful protest. Please VOTE AGAINST Amendments 382A–D.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I urge you to use your position in the House of Lords to protect our hard-won rights and freedoms. Please attend the vote on 7 January 2026 and oppose these dangerous plans.

{user_data~First Name} {user_data~Surname}
{user_data~Preferred Address Line 1}
{user_data~Preferred City}
{user_data~Preferred Postcode}

Baroness

Claire

Buckley

House of Lords

Dear Baroness Buckley

Proposals in the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill will block countless people from exercising their fundamental right to protest, risk criminalising marginalised communities, and prevent meaningful change.

I am writing to ask that you vote for amendments in the House of Lords that would safeguard our right to stand up for issues we care about.

RESTRICTING REPEAT PROTESTS

Protest has always been a part of British culture and tradition; our ability to do so is central to a healthy, functioning democracy. But clause 372 of the Crime and Policing Bill would restrict this right by giving police the power ban repeat demonstrations in a designated area.

If this is voted into law, senior police officers must consider the “cumulative disruption” caused by previous – or even future – protests in the area as a reason to ban a demonstration, regardless of whether they were organised by the same people or focused on the same issues.

They would also decide what area is restricted, with no clear rules on how big or small an area can be. This means we could see borough or city-wide bans on protests, simply because a different demonstration took place the week before.

This won't just impact frequent large-scale marches; it could restrict emergency demonstrations on issues of grave importance, or the right to organise counter protests.

Change is rarely achieved by a one-off demonstration outside Parliament; votes for women took nearly a century to achieve, as did a two-day weekend. Combined with other anti-protest measures in this Bill, banning repeat protests will have a chilling effect on how we can effectively make our voices heard and demand change.

Please VOTE AGAINST this amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill which would ban repeat demonstrations and stop people using their fundamental right to protest.

Lord Walney has also tabled an amendment which would push this “repeat protest” approach even further by creating new categories aimed at particular forms of recurring protest. This would widen the scope for pre-emptive restrictions and compound the risk that persistence itself is treated as grounds for shutting down lawful protest. 
 
Please VOTE AGAINST Government Amendment 372 and VOTE AGAINST Lord Walney’s Amendment 382E.

BANNING FACE COVERINGS AT PROTESTS

Sections 118-120 of the Crime and Policing Bill will make it a criminal offence to wear a face covering at designated protests, and police will have the power to arrest or fine anyone breaching this condition.

This would infringe on everybody’s right to decide how we protect ourselves when protesting. The lack of adequate safeguards in the Bill will particularly impact anyone who has to wear a face covering for health, religious, or privacy reasons. This could result in Muslim women, disabled people, and political dissidents being criminalised for attending protests with face coverings, and will have to prove their exemptions in court, rather than avoiding arrest in the first place.

Police already have far-reaching powers when it comes to protests, including the ability to require people to remove items if they believe they’re being used to hide their identity.

Demos polling shows that 86% of people believe everyone has the right to voice their opinion and raise awareness of issues. The Crime and Policing Bill will strip this right away from those who can only protest safely with a face covering.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part Amendments to clause remove Clauses 118-120 to scrap face covering restrictions from the Crime and Policing Bill.

BANNING PROTESTS OUTSIDE PLACES OF WORSHIP

Section 124 of the Bill also proposes giving the police powers to restrict protests ‘in the vicinity’ of places of worship.

Police already have the power to restrict protests based on their intention; this prevents genuine harm or disruption to religious communities. This new clause would instead ban protests based on the fact there is a place of worship nearby, regardless of intention, with the only criteria being that these protests could be considered ‘intimidating’.

This is an incredibly low threshold that could capture almost any protest in towns or cities across the country. Urban areas such as Westminster in Central London sees regular large-scale demonstrations outside Parliament. This entire area could now be restricted due to the numerous places of worship nearby, with no requirement to prove they are being targeted by protests.

This law risks targeting specific protest movements, from Pride marches to political demonstrations, without any evidence of religious discrimination or harassment. While the right to worship must be upheld, restricting demonstrations in this way could conflate safety concerns with our fundamental right to protest.

This law should have clear criteria that’s not open to interpretation and should only be allowed to apply when there’s a clear intent from protesters to intimidate nearby places of worship.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part amendment to remove Clause 124 from the Bill. If you are not comfortable supporting stand part, please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Blower’s Amendments 371A–371F to narrow and tighten Clause 124 by introducing clearer safeguards and limiting its scope.

FURTHER PROTEST RESTRICTIONS

Lord Davies of Gower has tabled amendments which would further restrict protest by enabling longer-lasting area bans, making it harder to organise processions quickly in response to current events, and removing the vital “reasonable excuse” safeguard that helps prevent the criminalisation of peaceful protest. Please VOTE AGAINST Amendments 382A–D.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I urge you to use your position in the House of Lords to protect our hard-won rights and freedoms. Please attend the vote on 7 January 2026 and oppose these dangerous plans.

{user_data~First Name} {user_data~Surname}
{user_data~Preferred Address Line 1}
{user_data~Preferred City}
{user_data~Preferred Postcode}

Lord

Brian

Paddick

House of Lords

Dear Lord Paddick

Proposals in the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill will block countless people from exercising their fundamental right to protest, risk criminalising marginalised communities, and prevent meaningful change.

I am writing to ask that you vote for amendments in the House of Lords that would safeguard our right to stand up for issues we care about.

RESTRICTING REPEAT PROTESTS

Protest has always been a part of British culture and tradition; our ability to do so is central to a healthy, functioning democracy. But clause 372 of the Crime and Policing Bill would restrict this right by giving police the power ban repeat demonstrations in a designated area.

If this is voted into law, senior police officers must consider the “cumulative disruption” caused by previous – or even future – protests in the area as a reason to ban a demonstration, regardless of whether they were organised by the same people or focused on the same issues.

They would also decide what area is restricted, with no clear rules on how big or small an area can be. This means we could see borough or city-wide bans on protests, simply because a different demonstration took place the week before.

This won't just impact frequent large-scale marches; it could restrict emergency demonstrations on issues of grave importance, or the right to organise counter protests.

Change is rarely achieved by a one-off demonstration outside Parliament; votes for women took nearly a century to achieve, as did a two-day weekend. Combined with other anti-protest measures in this Bill, banning repeat protests will have a chilling effect on how we can effectively make our voices heard and demand change.

Please VOTE AGAINST this amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill which would ban repeat demonstrations and stop people using their fundamental right to protest.

Lord Walney has also tabled an amendment which would push this “repeat protest” approach even further by creating new categories aimed at particular forms of recurring protest. This would widen the scope for pre-emptive restrictions and compound the risk that persistence itself is treated as grounds for shutting down lawful protest. 
 
Please VOTE AGAINST Government Amendment 372 and VOTE AGAINST Lord Walney’s Amendment 382E.

BANNING FACE COVERINGS AT PROTESTS

Sections 118-120 of the Crime and Policing Bill will make it a criminal offence to wear a face covering at designated protests, and police will have the power to arrest or fine anyone breaching this condition.

This would infringe on everybody’s right to decide how we protect ourselves when protesting. The lack of adequate safeguards in the Bill will particularly impact anyone who has to wear a face covering for health, religious, or privacy reasons. This could result in Muslim women, disabled people, and political dissidents being criminalised for attending protests with face coverings, and will have to prove their exemptions in court, rather than avoiding arrest in the first place.

Police already have far-reaching powers when it comes to protests, including the ability to require people to remove items if they believe they’re being used to hide their identity.

Demos polling shows that 86% of people believe everyone has the right to voice their opinion and raise awareness of issues. The Crime and Policing Bill will strip this right away from those who can only protest safely with a face covering.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part Amendments to clause remove Clauses 118-120 to scrap face covering restrictions from the Crime and Policing Bill.

BANNING PROTESTS OUTSIDE PLACES OF WORSHIP

Section 124 of the Bill also proposes giving the police powers to restrict protests ‘in the vicinity’ of places of worship.

Police already have the power to restrict protests based on their intention; this prevents genuine harm or disruption to religious communities. This new clause would instead ban protests based on the fact there is a place of worship nearby, regardless of intention, with the only criteria being that these protests could be considered ‘intimidating’.

This is an incredibly low threshold that could capture almost any protest in towns or cities across the country. Urban areas such as Westminster in Central London sees regular large-scale demonstrations outside Parliament. This entire area could now be restricted due to the numerous places of worship nearby, with no requirement to prove they are being targeted by protests.

This law risks targeting specific protest movements, from Pride marches to political demonstrations, without any evidence of religious discrimination or harassment. While the right to worship must be upheld, restricting demonstrations in this way could conflate safety concerns with our fundamental right to protest.

This law should have clear criteria that’s not open to interpretation and should only be allowed to apply when there’s a clear intent from protesters to intimidate nearby places of worship.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part amendment to remove Clause 124 from the Bill. If you are not comfortable supporting stand part, please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Blower’s Amendments 371A–371F to narrow and tighten Clause 124 by introducing clearer safeguards and limiting its scope.

FURTHER PROTEST RESTRICTIONS

Lord Davies of Gower has tabled amendments which would further restrict protest by enabling longer-lasting area bans, making it harder to organise processions quickly in response to current events, and removing the vital “reasonable excuse” safeguard that helps prevent the criminalisation of peaceful protest. Please VOTE AGAINST Amendments 382A–D.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I urge you to use your position in the House of Lords to protect our hard-won rights and freedoms. Please attend the vote on 7 January 2026 and oppose these dangerous plans.

{user_data~First Name} {user_data~Surname}
{user_data~Preferred Address Line 1}
{user_data~Preferred City}
{user_data~Preferred Postcode}

Baroness

Carmen

Smith of Llanfaes

House of Lords

Dear Baroness Smith of Llanfaes

Proposals in the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill will block countless people from exercising their fundamental right to protest, risk criminalising marginalised communities, and prevent meaningful change.

I am writing to ask that you vote for amendments in the House of Lords that would safeguard our right to stand up for issues we care about.

RESTRICTING REPEAT PROTESTS

Protest has always been a part of British culture and tradition; our ability to do so is central to a healthy, functioning democracy. But clause 372 of the Crime and Policing Bill would restrict this right by giving police the power ban repeat demonstrations in a designated area.

If this is voted into law, senior police officers must consider the “cumulative disruption” caused by previous – or even future – protests in the area as a reason to ban a demonstration, regardless of whether they were organised by the same people or focused on the same issues.

They would also decide what area is restricted, with no clear rules on how big or small an area can be. This means we could see borough or city-wide bans on protests, simply because a different demonstration took place the week before.

This won't just impact frequent large-scale marches; it could restrict emergency demonstrations on issues of grave importance, or the right to organise counter protests.

Change is rarely achieved by a one-off demonstration outside Parliament; votes for women took nearly a century to achieve, as did a two-day weekend. Combined with other anti-protest measures in this Bill, banning repeat protests will have a chilling effect on how we can effectively make our voices heard and demand change.

Please VOTE AGAINST this amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill which would ban repeat demonstrations and stop people using their fundamental right to protest.

Lord Walney has also tabled an amendment which would push this “repeat protest” approach even further by creating new categories aimed at particular forms of recurring protest. This would widen the scope for pre-emptive restrictions and compound the risk that persistence itself is treated as grounds for shutting down lawful protest. 
 
Please VOTE AGAINST Government Amendment 372 and VOTE AGAINST Lord Walney’s Amendment 382E.

BANNING FACE COVERINGS AT PROTESTS

Sections 118-120 of the Crime and Policing Bill will make it a criminal offence to wear a face covering at designated protests, and police will have the power to arrest or fine anyone breaching this condition.

This would infringe on everybody’s right to decide how we protect ourselves when protesting. The lack of adequate safeguards in the Bill will particularly impact anyone who has to wear a face covering for health, religious, or privacy reasons. This could result in Muslim women, disabled people, and political dissidents being criminalised for attending protests with face coverings, and will have to prove their exemptions in court, rather than avoiding arrest in the first place.

Police already have far-reaching powers when it comes to protests, including the ability to require people to remove items if they believe they’re being used to hide their identity.

Demos polling shows that 86% of people believe everyone has the right to voice their opinion and raise awareness of issues. The Crime and Policing Bill will strip this right away from those who can only protest safely with a face covering.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part Amendments to clause remove Clauses 118-120 to scrap face covering restrictions from the Crime and Policing Bill.

BANNING PROTESTS OUTSIDE PLACES OF WORSHIP

Section 124 of the Bill also proposes giving the police powers to restrict protests ‘in the vicinity’ of places of worship.

Police already have the power to restrict protests based on their intention; this prevents genuine harm or disruption to religious communities. This new clause would instead ban protests based on the fact there is a place of worship nearby, regardless of intention, with the only criteria being that these protests could be considered ‘intimidating’.

This is an incredibly low threshold that could capture almost any protest in towns or cities across the country. Urban areas such as Westminster in Central London sees regular large-scale demonstrations outside Parliament. This entire area could now be restricted due to the numerous places of worship nearby, with no requirement to prove they are being targeted by protests.

This law risks targeting specific protest movements, from Pride marches to political demonstrations, without any evidence of religious discrimination or harassment. While the right to worship must be upheld, restricting demonstrations in this way could conflate safety concerns with our fundamental right to protest.

This law should have clear criteria that’s not open to interpretation and should only be allowed to apply when there’s a clear intent from protesters to intimidate nearby places of worship.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part amendment to remove Clause 124 from the Bill. If you are not comfortable supporting stand part, please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Blower’s Amendments 371A–371F to narrow and tighten Clause 124 by introducing clearer safeguards and limiting its scope.

FURTHER PROTEST RESTRICTIONS

Lord Davies of Gower has tabled amendments which would further restrict protest by enabling longer-lasting area bans, making it harder to organise processions quickly in response to current events, and removing the vital “reasonable excuse” safeguard that helps prevent the criminalisation of peaceful protest. Please VOTE AGAINST Amendments 382A–D.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I urge you to use your position in the House of Lords to protect our hard-won rights and freedoms. Please attend the vote on 7 January 2026 and oppose these dangerous plans.

{user_data~First Name} {user_data~Surname}
{user_data~Preferred Address Line 1}
{user_data~Preferred City}
{user_data~Preferred Postcode}

Baroness

Manzila

Uddin

House of Lords

Dear Baroness Uddin

Proposals in the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill will block countless people from exercising their fundamental right to protest, risk criminalising marginalised communities, and prevent meaningful change.

I am writing to ask that you vote for amendments in the House of Lords that would safeguard our right to stand up for issues we care about.

RESTRICTING REPEAT PROTESTS

Protest has always been a part of British culture and tradition; our ability to do so is central to a healthy, functioning democracy. But clause 372 of the Crime and Policing Bill would restrict this right by giving police the power ban repeat demonstrations in a designated area.

If this is voted into law, senior police officers must consider the “cumulative disruption” caused by previous – or even future – protests in the area as a reason to ban a demonstration, regardless of whether they were organised by the same people or focused on the same issues.

They would also decide what area is restricted, with no clear rules on how big or small an area can be. This means we could see borough or city-wide bans on protests, simply because a different demonstration took place the week before.

This won't just impact frequent large-scale marches; it could restrict emergency demonstrations on issues of grave importance, or the right to organise counter protests.

Change is rarely achieved by a one-off demonstration outside Parliament; votes for women took nearly a century to achieve, as did a two-day weekend. Combined with other anti-protest measures in this Bill, banning repeat protests will have a chilling effect on how we can effectively make our voices heard and demand change.

Please VOTE AGAINST this amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill which would ban repeat demonstrations and stop people using their fundamental right to protest.

Lord Walney has also tabled an amendment which would push this “repeat protest” approach even further by creating new categories aimed at particular forms of recurring protest. This would widen the scope for pre-emptive restrictions and compound the risk that persistence itself is treated as grounds for shutting down lawful protest. 
 
Please VOTE AGAINST Government Amendment 372 and VOTE AGAINST Lord Walney’s Amendment 382E.

BANNING FACE COVERINGS AT PROTESTS

Sections 118-120 of the Crime and Policing Bill will make it a criminal offence to wear a face covering at designated protests, and police will have the power to arrest or fine anyone breaching this condition.

This would infringe on everybody’s right to decide how we protect ourselves when protesting. The lack of adequate safeguards in the Bill will particularly impact anyone who has to wear a face covering for health, religious, or privacy reasons. This could result in Muslim women, disabled people, and political dissidents being criminalised for attending protests with face coverings, and will have to prove their exemptions in court, rather than avoiding arrest in the first place.

Police already have far-reaching powers when it comes to protests, including the ability to require people to remove items if they believe they’re being used to hide their identity.

Demos polling shows that 86% of people believe everyone has the right to voice their opinion and raise awareness of issues. The Crime and Policing Bill will strip this right away from those who can only protest safely with a face covering.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part Amendments to clause remove Clauses 118-120 to scrap face covering restrictions from the Crime and Policing Bill.

BANNING PROTESTS OUTSIDE PLACES OF WORSHIP

Section 124 of the Bill also proposes giving the police powers to restrict protests ‘in the vicinity’ of places of worship.

Police already have the power to restrict protests based on their intention; this prevents genuine harm or disruption to religious communities. This new clause would instead ban protests based on the fact there is a place of worship nearby, regardless of intention, with the only criteria being that these protests could be considered ‘intimidating’.

This is an incredibly low threshold that could capture almost any protest in towns or cities across the country. Urban areas such as Westminster in Central London sees regular large-scale demonstrations outside Parliament. This entire area could now be restricted due to the numerous places of worship nearby, with no requirement to prove they are being targeted by protests.

This law risks targeting specific protest movements, from Pride marches to political demonstrations, without any evidence of religious discrimination or harassment. While the right to worship must be upheld, restricting demonstrations in this way could conflate safety concerns with our fundamental right to protest.

This law should have clear criteria that’s not open to interpretation and should only be allowed to apply when there’s a clear intent from protesters to intimidate nearby places of worship.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part amendment to remove Clause 124 from the Bill. If you are not comfortable supporting stand part, please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Blower’s Amendments 371A–371F to narrow and tighten Clause 124 by introducing clearer safeguards and limiting its scope.

FURTHER PROTEST RESTRICTIONS

Lord Davies of Gower has tabled amendments which would further restrict protest by enabling longer-lasting area bans, making it harder to organise processions quickly in response to current events, and removing the vital “reasonable excuse” safeguard that helps prevent the criminalisation of peaceful protest. Please VOTE AGAINST Amendments 382A–D.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I urge you to use your position in the House of Lords to protect our hard-won rights and freedoms. Please attend the vote on 7 January 2026 and oppose these dangerous plans.

{user_data~First Name} {user_data~Surname}
{user_data~Preferred Address Line 1}
{user_data~Preferred City}
{user_data~Preferred Postcode}

Lord

John

Kerr of Kinlochard

House of Lords

Dear Lord Kerr of Kinlochard

Proposals in the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill will block countless people from exercising their fundamental right to protest, risk criminalising marginalised communities, and prevent meaningful change.

I am writing to ask that you vote for amendments in the House of Lords that would safeguard our right to stand up for issues we care about.

RESTRICTING REPEAT PROTESTS

Protest has always been a part of British culture and tradition; our ability to do so is central to a healthy, functioning democracy. But clause 372 of the Crime and Policing Bill would restrict this right by giving police the power ban repeat demonstrations in a designated area.

If this is voted into law, senior police officers must consider the “cumulative disruption” caused by previous – or even future – protests in the area as a reason to ban a demonstration, regardless of whether they were organised by the same people or focused on the same issues.

They would also decide what area is restricted, with no clear rules on how big or small an area can be. This means we could see borough or city-wide bans on protests, simply because a different demonstration took place the week before.

This won't just impact frequent large-scale marches; it could restrict emergency demonstrations on issues of grave importance, or the right to organise counter protests.

Change is rarely achieved by a one-off demonstration outside Parliament; votes for women took nearly a century to achieve, as did a two-day weekend. Combined with other anti-protest measures in this Bill, banning repeat protests will have a chilling effect on how we can effectively make our voices heard and demand change.

Please VOTE AGAINST this amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill which would ban repeat demonstrations and stop people using their fundamental right to protest.

Lord Walney has also tabled an amendment which would push this “repeat protest” approach even further by creating new categories aimed at particular forms of recurring protest. This would widen the scope for pre-emptive restrictions and compound the risk that persistence itself is treated as grounds for shutting down lawful protest. 
 
Please VOTE AGAINST Government Amendment 372 and VOTE AGAINST Lord Walney’s Amendment 382E.

BANNING FACE COVERINGS AT PROTESTS

Sections 118-120 of the Crime and Policing Bill will make it a criminal offence to wear a face covering at designated protests, and police will have the power to arrest or fine anyone breaching this condition.

This would infringe on everybody’s right to decide how we protect ourselves when protesting. The lack of adequate safeguards in the Bill will particularly impact anyone who has to wear a face covering for health, religious, or privacy reasons. This could result in Muslim women, disabled people, and political dissidents being criminalised for attending protests with face coverings, and will have to prove their exemptions in court, rather than avoiding arrest in the first place.

Police already have far-reaching powers when it comes to protests, including the ability to require people to remove items if they believe they’re being used to hide their identity.

Demos polling shows that 86% of people believe everyone has the right to voice their opinion and raise awareness of issues. The Crime and Policing Bill will strip this right away from those who can only protest safely with a face covering.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part Amendments to clause remove Clauses 118-120 to scrap face covering restrictions from the Crime and Policing Bill.

BANNING PROTESTS OUTSIDE PLACES OF WORSHIP

Section 124 of the Bill also proposes giving the police powers to restrict protests ‘in the vicinity’ of places of worship.

Police already have the power to restrict protests based on their intention; this prevents genuine harm or disruption to religious communities. This new clause would instead ban protests based on the fact there is a place of worship nearby, regardless of intention, with the only criteria being that these protests could be considered ‘intimidating’.

This is an incredibly low threshold that could capture almost any protest in towns or cities across the country. Urban areas such as Westminster in Central London sees regular large-scale demonstrations outside Parliament. This entire area could now be restricted due to the numerous places of worship nearby, with no requirement to prove they are being targeted by protests.

This law risks targeting specific protest movements, from Pride marches to political demonstrations, without any evidence of religious discrimination or harassment. While the right to worship must be upheld, restricting demonstrations in this way could conflate safety concerns with our fundamental right to protest.

This law should have clear criteria that’s not open to interpretation and should only be allowed to apply when there’s a clear intent from protesters to intimidate nearby places of worship.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part amendment to remove Clause 124 from the Bill. If you are not comfortable supporting stand part, please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Blower’s Amendments 371A–371F to narrow and tighten Clause 124 by introducing clearer safeguards and limiting its scope.

FURTHER PROTEST RESTRICTIONS

Lord Davies of Gower has tabled amendments which would further restrict protest by enabling longer-lasting area bans, making it harder to organise processions quickly in response to current events, and removing the vital “reasonable excuse” safeguard that helps prevent the criminalisation of peaceful protest. Please VOTE AGAINST Amendments 382A–D.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I urge you to use your position in the House of Lords to protect our hard-won rights and freedoms. Please attend the vote on 7 January 2026 and oppose these dangerous plans.

{user_data~First Name} {user_data~Surname}
{user_data~Preferred Address Line 1}
{user_data~Preferred City}
{user_data~Preferred Postcode}

Lord

John Olav

Kerr

House of Lords

Dear Lord Kerr

Proposals in the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill will block countless people from exercising their fundamental right to protest, risk criminalising marginalised communities, and prevent meaningful change.

I am writing to ask that you vote for amendments in the House of Lords that would safeguard our right to stand up for issues we care about.

RESTRICTING REPEAT PROTESTS

Protest has always been a part of British culture and tradition; our ability to do so is central to a healthy, functioning democracy. But clause 372 of the Crime and Policing Bill would restrict this right by giving police the power ban repeat demonstrations in a designated area.

If this is voted into law, senior police officers must consider the “cumulative disruption” caused by previous – or even future – protests in the area as a reason to ban a demonstration, regardless of whether they were organised by the same people or focused on the same issues.

They would also decide what area is restricted, with no clear rules on how big or small an area can be. This means we could see borough or city-wide bans on protests, simply because a different demonstration took place the week before.

This won't just impact frequent large-scale marches; it could restrict emergency demonstrations on issues of grave importance, or the right to organise counter protests.

Change is rarely achieved by a one-off demonstration outside Parliament; votes for women took nearly a century to achieve, as did a two-day weekend. Combined with other anti-protest measures in this Bill, banning repeat protests will have a chilling effect on how we can effectively make our voices heard and demand change.

Please VOTE AGAINST this amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill which would ban repeat demonstrations and stop people using their fundamental right to protest.

Lord Walney has also tabled an amendment which would push this “repeat protest” approach even further by creating new categories aimed at particular forms of recurring protest. This would widen the scope for pre-emptive restrictions and compound the risk that persistence itself is treated as grounds for shutting down lawful protest. 
 
Please VOTE AGAINST Government Amendment 372 and VOTE AGAINST Lord Walney’s Amendment 382E.

BANNING FACE COVERINGS AT PROTESTS

Sections 118-120 of the Crime and Policing Bill will make it a criminal offence to wear a face covering at designated protests, and police will have the power to arrest or fine anyone breaching this condition.

This would infringe on everybody’s right to decide how we protect ourselves when protesting. The lack of adequate safeguards in the Bill will particularly impact anyone who has to wear a face covering for health, religious, or privacy reasons. This could result in Muslim women, disabled people, and political dissidents being criminalised for attending protests with face coverings, and will have to prove their exemptions in court, rather than avoiding arrest in the first place.

Police already have far-reaching powers when it comes to protests, including the ability to require people to remove items if they believe they’re being used to hide their identity.

Demos polling shows that 86% of people believe everyone has the right to voice their opinion and raise awareness of issues. The Crime and Policing Bill will strip this right away from those who can only protest safely with a face covering.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part Amendments to clause remove Clauses 118-120 to scrap face covering restrictions from the Crime and Policing Bill.

BANNING PROTESTS OUTSIDE PLACES OF WORSHIP

Section 124 of the Bill also proposes giving the police powers to restrict protests ‘in the vicinity’ of places of worship.

Police already have the power to restrict protests based on their intention; this prevents genuine harm or disruption to religious communities. This new clause would instead ban protests based on the fact there is a place of worship nearby, regardless of intention, with the only criteria being that these protests could be considered ‘intimidating’.

This is an incredibly low threshold that could capture almost any protest in towns or cities across the country. Urban areas such as Westminster in Central London sees regular large-scale demonstrations outside Parliament. This entire area could now be restricted due to the numerous places of worship nearby, with no requirement to prove they are being targeted by protests.

This law risks targeting specific protest movements, from Pride marches to political demonstrations, without any evidence of religious discrimination or harassment. While the right to worship must be upheld, restricting demonstrations in this way could conflate safety concerns with our fundamental right to protest.

This law should have clear criteria that’s not open to interpretation and should only be allowed to apply when there’s a clear intent from protesters to intimidate nearby places of worship.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part amendment to remove Clause 124 from the Bill. If you are not comfortable supporting stand part, please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Blower’s Amendments 371A–371F to narrow and tighten Clause 124 by introducing clearer safeguards and limiting its scope.

FURTHER PROTEST RESTRICTIONS

Lord Davies of Gower has tabled amendments which would further restrict protest by enabling longer-lasting area bans, making it harder to organise processions quickly in response to current events, and removing the vital “reasonable excuse” safeguard that helps prevent the criminalisation of peaceful protest. Please VOTE AGAINST Amendments 382A–D.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I urge you to use your position in the House of Lords to protect our hard-won rights and freedoms. Please attend the vote on 7 January 2026 and oppose these dangerous plans.

{user_data~First Name} {user_data~Surname}
{user_data~Preferred Address Line 1}
{user_data~Preferred City}
{user_data~Preferred Postcode}

Baroness

Nuala Patricia

O'Loan

House of Lords

Dear Lord O'Loan

Proposals in the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill will block countless people from exercising their fundamental right to protest, risk criminalising marginalised communities, and prevent meaningful change.

I am writing to ask that you vote for amendments in the House of Lords that would safeguard our right to stand up for issues we care about.

RESTRICTING REPEAT PROTESTS

Protest has always been a part of British culture and tradition; our ability to do so is central to a healthy, functioning democracy. But clause 372 of the Crime and Policing Bill would restrict this right by giving police the power ban repeat demonstrations in a designated area.

If this is voted into law, senior police officers must consider the “cumulative disruption” caused by previous – or even future – protests in the area as a reason to ban a demonstration, regardless of whether they were organised by the same people or focused on the same issues.

They would also decide what area is restricted, with no clear rules on how big or small an area can be. This means we could see borough or city-wide bans on protests, simply because a different demonstration took place the week before.

This won't just impact frequent large-scale marches; it could restrict emergency demonstrations on issues of grave importance, or the right to organise counter protests.

Change is rarely achieved by a one-off demonstration outside Parliament; votes for women took nearly a century to achieve, as did a two-day weekend. Combined with other anti-protest measures in this Bill, banning repeat protests will have a chilling effect on how we can effectively make our voices heard and demand change.

Please VOTE AGAINST this amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill which would ban repeat demonstrations and stop people using their fundamental right to protest.

Lord Walney has also tabled an amendment which would push this “repeat protest” approach even further by creating new categories aimed at particular forms of recurring protest. This would widen the scope for pre-emptive restrictions and compound the risk that persistence itself is treated as grounds for shutting down lawful protest. 
 
Please VOTE AGAINST Government Amendment 372 and VOTE AGAINST Lord Walney’s Amendment 382E.

BANNING FACE COVERINGS AT PROTESTS

Sections 118-120 of the Crime and Policing Bill will make it a criminal offence to wear a face covering at designated protests, and police will have the power to arrest or fine anyone breaching this condition.

This would infringe on everybody’s right to decide how we protect ourselves when protesting. The lack of adequate safeguards in the Bill will particularly impact anyone who has to wear a face covering for health, religious, or privacy reasons. This could result in Muslim women, disabled people, and political dissidents being criminalised for attending protests with face coverings, and will have to prove their exemptions in court, rather than avoiding arrest in the first place.

Police already have far-reaching powers when it comes to protests, including the ability to require people to remove items if they believe they’re being used to hide their identity.

Demos polling shows that 86% of people believe everyone has the right to voice their opinion and raise awareness of issues. The Crime and Policing Bill will strip this right away from those who can only protest safely with a face covering.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part Amendments to clause remove Clauses 118-120 to scrap face covering restrictions from the Crime and Policing Bill.

BANNING PROTESTS OUTSIDE PLACES OF WORSHIP

Section 124 of the Bill also proposes giving the police powers to restrict protests ‘in the vicinity’ of places of worship.

Police already have the power to restrict protests based on their intention; this prevents genuine harm or disruption to religious communities. This new clause would instead ban protests based on the fact there is a place of worship nearby, regardless of intention, with the only criteria being that these protests could be considered ‘intimidating’.

This is an incredibly low threshold that could capture almost any protest in towns or cities across the country. Urban areas such as Westminster in Central London sees regular large-scale demonstrations outside Parliament. This entire area could now be restricted due to the numerous places of worship nearby, with no requirement to prove they are being targeted by protests.

This law risks targeting specific protest movements, from Pride marches to political demonstrations, without any evidence of religious discrimination or harassment. While the right to worship must be upheld, restricting demonstrations in this way could conflate safety concerns with our fundamental right to protest.

This law should have clear criteria that’s not open to interpretation and should only be allowed to apply when there’s a clear intent from protesters to intimidate nearby places of worship.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part amendment to remove Clause 124 from the Bill. If you are not comfortable supporting stand part, please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Blower’s Amendments 371A–371F to narrow and tighten Clause 124 by introducing clearer safeguards and limiting its scope.

FURTHER PROTEST RESTRICTIONS

Lord Davies of Gower has tabled amendments which would further restrict protest by enabling longer-lasting area bans, making it harder to organise processions quickly in response to current events, and removing the vital “reasonable excuse” safeguard that helps prevent the criminalisation of peaceful protest. Please VOTE AGAINST Amendments 382A–D.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I urge you to use your position in the House of Lords to protect our hard-won rights and freedoms. Please attend the vote on 7 January 2026 and oppose these dangerous plans.

{user_data~First Name} {user_data~Surname}
{user_data~Preferred Address Line 1}
{user_data~Preferred City}
{user_data~Preferred Postcode}

Baroness

Christine

Blower

House of Lords

Dear Baroness Blower

Proposals in the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill will block countless people from exercising their fundamental right to protest, risk criminalising marginalised communities, and prevent meaningful change.

I am writing to ask that you vote for amendments in the House of Lords that would safeguard our right to stand up for issues we care about.

RESTRICTING REPEAT PROTESTS

Protest has always been a part of British culture and tradition; our ability to do so is central to a healthy, functioning democracy. But clause 372 of the Crime and Policing Bill would restrict this right by giving police the power ban repeat demonstrations in a designated area.

If this is voted into law, senior police officers must consider the “cumulative disruption” caused by previous – or even future – protests in the area as a reason to ban a demonstration, regardless of whether they were organised by the same people or focused on the same issues.

They would also decide what area is restricted, with no clear rules on how big or small an area can be. This means we could see borough or city-wide bans on protests, simply because a different demonstration took place the week before.

This won't just impact frequent large-scale marches; it could restrict emergency demonstrations on issues of grave importance, or the right to organise counter protests.

Change is rarely achieved by a one-off demonstration outside Parliament; votes for women took nearly a century to achieve, as did a two-day weekend. Combined with other anti-protest measures in this Bill, banning repeat protests will have a chilling effect on how we can effectively make our voices heard and demand change.

Please VOTE AGAINST this amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill which would ban repeat demonstrations and stop people using their fundamental right to protest.

Lord Walney has also tabled an amendment which would push this “repeat protest” approach even further by creating new categories aimed at particular forms of recurring protest. This would widen the scope for pre-emptive restrictions and compound the risk that persistence itself is treated as grounds for shutting down lawful protest. 
 
Please VOTE AGAINST Government Amendment 372 and VOTE AGAINST Lord Walney’s Amendment 382E.

BANNING FACE COVERINGS AT PROTESTS

Sections 118-120 of the Crime and Policing Bill will make it a criminal offence to wear a face covering at designated protests, and police will have the power to arrest or fine anyone breaching this condition.

This would infringe on everybody’s right to decide how we protect ourselves when protesting. The lack of adequate safeguards in the Bill will particularly impact anyone who has to wear a face covering for health, religious, or privacy reasons. This could result in Muslim women, disabled people, and political dissidents being criminalised for attending protests with face coverings, and will have to prove their exemptions in court, rather than avoiding arrest in the first place.

Police already have far-reaching powers when it comes to protests, including the ability to require people to remove items if they believe they’re being used to hide their identity.

Demos polling shows that 86% of people believe everyone has the right to voice their opinion and raise awareness of issues. The Crime and Policing Bill will strip this right away from those who can only protest safely with a face covering.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part Amendments to clause remove Clauses 118-120 to scrap face covering restrictions from the Crime and Policing Bill.

BANNING PROTESTS OUTSIDE PLACES OF WORSHIP

Section 124 of the Bill also proposes giving the police powers to restrict protests ‘in the vicinity’ of places of worship.

Police already have the power to restrict protests based on their intention; this prevents genuine harm or disruption to religious communities. This new clause would instead ban protests based on the fact there is a place of worship nearby, regardless of intention, with the only criteria being that these protests could be considered ‘intimidating’.

This is an incredibly low threshold that could capture almost any protest in towns or cities across the country. Urban areas such as Westminster in Central London sees regular large-scale demonstrations outside Parliament. This entire area could now be restricted due to the numerous places of worship nearby, with no requirement to prove they are being targeted by protests.

This law risks targeting specific protest movements, from Pride marches to political demonstrations, without any evidence of religious discrimination or harassment. While the right to worship must be upheld, restricting demonstrations in this way could conflate safety concerns with our fundamental right to protest.

This law should have clear criteria that’s not open to interpretation and should only be allowed to apply when there’s a clear intent from protesters to intimidate nearby places of worship.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part amendment to remove Clause 124 from the Bill. If you are not comfortable supporting stand part, please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Blower’s Amendments 371A–371F to narrow and tighten Clause 124 by introducing clearer safeguards and limiting its scope.

FURTHER PROTEST RESTRICTIONS

Lord Davies of Gower has tabled amendments which would further restrict protest by enabling longer-lasting area bans, making it harder to organise processions quickly in response to current events, and removing the vital “reasonable excuse” safeguard that helps prevent the criminalisation of peaceful protest. Please VOTE AGAINST Amendments 382A–D.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I urge you to use your position in the House of Lords to protect our hard-won rights and freedoms. Please attend the vote on 7 January 2026 and oppose these dangerous plans.

{user_data~First Name} {user_data~Surname}
{user_data~Preferred Address Line 1}
{user_data~Preferred City}
{user_data~Preferred Postcode}

Lord

Stewart Martin

Wood

House of Lords

Dear Lord Wood

Proposals in the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill will block countless people from exercising their fundamental right to protest, risk criminalising marginalised communities, and prevent meaningful change.

I am writing to ask that you vote for amendments in the House of Lords that would safeguard our right to stand up for issues we care about.

RESTRICTING REPEAT PROTESTS

Protest has always been a part of British culture and tradition; our ability to do so is central to a healthy, functioning democracy. But clause 372 of the Crime and Policing Bill would restrict this right by giving police the power ban repeat demonstrations in a designated area.

If this is voted into law, senior police officers must consider the “cumulative disruption” caused by previous – or even future – protests in the area as a reason to ban a demonstration, regardless of whether they were organised by the same people or focused on the same issues.

They would also decide what area is restricted, with no clear rules on how big or small an area can be. This means we could see borough or city-wide bans on protests, simply because a different demonstration took place the week before.

This won't just impact frequent large-scale marches; it could restrict emergency demonstrations on issues of grave importance, or the right to organise counter protests.

Change is rarely achieved by a one-off demonstration outside Parliament; votes for women took nearly a century to achieve, as did a two-day weekend. Combined with other anti-protest measures in this Bill, banning repeat protests will have a chilling effect on how we can effectively make our voices heard and demand change.

Please VOTE AGAINST this amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill which would ban repeat demonstrations and stop people using their fundamental right to protest.

Lord Walney has also tabled an amendment which would push this “repeat protest” approach even further by creating new categories aimed at particular forms of recurring protest. This would widen the scope for pre-emptive restrictions and compound the risk that persistence itself is treated as grounds for shutting down lawful protest. 
 
Please VOTE AGAINST Government Amendment 372 and VOTE AGAINST Lord Walney’s Amendment 382E.

BANNING FACE COVERINGS AT PROTESTS

Sections 118-120 of the Crime and Policing Bill will make it a criminal offence to wear a face covering at designated protests, and police will have the power to arrest or fine anyone breaching this condition.

This would infringe on everybody’s right to decide how we protect ourselves when protesting. The lack of adequate safeguards in the Bill will particularly impact anyone who has to wear a face covering for health, religious, or privacy reasons. This could result in Muslim women, disabled people, and political dissidents being criminalised for attending protests with face coverings, and will have to prove their exemptions in court, rather than avoiding arrest in the first place.

Police already have far-reaching powers when it comes to protests, including the ability to require people to remove items if they believe they’re being used to hide their identity.

Demos polling shows that 86% of people believe everyone has the right to voice their opinion and raise awareness of issues. The Crime and Policing Bill will strip this right away from those who can only protest safely with a face covering.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part Amendments to clause remove Clauses 118-120 to scrap face covering restrictions from the Crime and Policing Bill.

BANNING PROTESTS OUTSIDE PLACES OF WORSHIP

Section 124 of the Bill also proposes giving the police powers to restrict protests ‘in the vicinity’ of places of worship.

Police already have the power to restrict protests based on their intention; this prevents genuine harm or disruption to religious communities. This new clause would instead ban protests based on the fact there is a place of worship nearby, regardless of intention, with the only criteria being that these protests could be considered ‘intimidating’.

This is an incredibly low threshold that could capture almost any protest in towns or cities across the country. Urban areas such as Westminster in Central London sees regular large-scale demonstrations outside Parliament. This entire area could now be restricted due to the numerous places of worship nearby, with no requirement to prove they are being targeted by protests.

This law risks targeting specific protest movements, from Pride marches to political demonstrations, without any evidence of religious discrimination or harassment. While the right to worship must be upheld, restricting demonstrations in this way could conflate safety concerns with our fundamental right to protest.

This law should have clear criteria that’s not open to interpretation and should only be allowed to apply when there’s a clear intent from protesters to intimidate nearby places of worship.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part amendment to remove Clause 124 from the Bill. If you are not comfortable supporting stand part, please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Blower’s Amendments 371A–371F to narrow and tighten Clause 124 by introducing clearer safeguards and limiting its scope.

FURTHER PROTEST RESTRICTIONS

Lord Davies of Gower has tabled amendments which would further restrict protest by enabling longer-lasting area bans, making it harder to organise processions quickly in response to current events, and removing the vital “reasonable excuse” safeguard that helps prevent the criminalisation of peaceful protest. Please VOTE AGAINST Amendments 382A–D.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I urge you to use your position in the House of Lords to protect our hard-won rights and freedoms. Please attend the vote on 7 January 2026 and oppose these dangerous plans.

{user_data~First Name} {user_data~Surname}
{user_data~Preferred Address Line 1}
{user_data~Preferred City}
{user_data~Preferred Postcode}

Baroness

Barbara

Scott Young

House of Lords

Dear Baroness Young

Proposals in the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill will block countless people from exercising their fundamental right to protest, risk criminalising marginalised communities, and prevent meaningful change.

I am writing to ask that you vote for amendments in the House of Lords that would safeguard our right to stand up for issues we care about.

RESTRICTING REPEAT PROTESTS

Protest has always been a part of British culture and tradition; our ability to do so is central to a healthy, functioning democracy. But clause 372 of the Crime and Policing Bill would restrict this right by giving police the power ban repeat demonstrations in a designated area.

If this is voted into law, senior police officers must consider the “cumulative disruption” caused by previous – or even future – protests in the area as a reason to ban a demonstration, regardless of whether they were organised by the same people or focused on the same issues.

They would also decide what area is restricted, with no clear rules on how big or small an area can be. This means we could see borough or city-wide bans on protests, simply because a different demonstration took place the week before.

This won't just impact frequent large-scale marches; it could restrict emergency demonstrations on issues of grave importance, or the right to organise counter protests.

Change is rarely achieved by a one-off demonstration outside Parliament; votes for women took nearly a century to achieve, as did a two-day weekend. Combined with other anti-protest measures in this Bill, banning repeat protests will have a chilling effect on how we can effectively make our voices heard and demand change.

Please VOTE AGAINST this amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill which would ban repeat demonstrations and stop people using their fundamental right to protest.

Lord Walney has also tabled an amendment which would push this “repeat protest” approach even further by creating new categories aimed at particular forms of recurring protest. This would widen the scope for pre-emptive restrictions and compound the risk that persistence itself is treated as grounds for shutting down lawful protest. 
 
Please VOTE AGAINST Government Amendment 372 and VOTE AGAINST Lord Walney’s Amendment 382E.

BANNING FACE COVERINGS AT PROTESTS

Sections 118-120 of the Crime and Policing Bill will make it a criminal offence to wear a face covering at designated protests, and police will have the power to arrest or fine anyone breaching this condition.

This would infringe on everybody’s right to decide how we protect ourselves when protesting. The lack of adequate safeguards in the Bill will particularly impact anyone who has to wear a face covering for health, religious, or privacy reasons. This could result in Muslim women, disabled people, and political dissidents being criminalised for attending protests with face coverings, and will have to prove their exemptions in court, rather than avoiding arrest in the first place.

Police already have far-reaching powers when it comes to protests, including the ability to require people to remove items if they believe they’re being used to hide their identity.

Demos polling shows that 86% of people believe everyone has the right to voice their opinion and raise awareness of issues. The Crime and Policing Bill will strip this right away from those who can only protest safely with a face covering.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part Amendments to clause remove Clauses 118-120 to scrap face covering restrictions from the Crime and Policing Bill.

BANNING PROTESTS OUTSIDE PLACES OF WORSHIP

Section 124 of the Bill also proposes giving the police powers to restrict protests ‘in the vicinity’ of places of worship.

Police already have the power to restrict protests based on their intention; this prevents genuine harm or disruption to religious communities. This new clause would instead ban protests based on the fact there is a place of worship nearby, regardless of intention, with the only criteria being that these protests could be considered ‘intimidating’.

This is an incredibly low threshold that could capture almost any protest in towns or cities across the country. Urban areas such as Westminster in Central London sees regular large-scale demonstrations outside Parliament. This entire area could now be restricted due to the numerous places of worship nearby, with no requirement to prove they are being targeted by protests.

This law risks targeting specific protest movements, from Pride marches to political demonstrations, without any evidence of religious discrimination or harassment. While the right to worship must be upheld, restricting demonstrations in this way could conflate safety concerns with our fundamental right to protest.

This law should have clear criteria that’s not open to interpretation and should only be allowed to apply when there’s a clear intent from protesters to intimidate nearby places of worship.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part amendment to remove Clause 124 from the Bill. If you are not comfortable supporting stand part, please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Blower’s Amendments 371A–371F to narrow and tighten Clause 124 by introducing clearer safeguards and limiting its scope.

FURTHER PROTEST RESTRICTIONS

Lord Davies of Gower has tabled amendments which would further restrict protest by enabling longer-lasting area bans, making it harder to organise processions quickly in response to current events, and removing the vital “reasonable excuse” safeguard that helps prevent the criminalisation of peaceful protest. Please VOTE AGAINST Amendments 382A–D.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I urge you to use your position in the House of Lords to protect our hard-won rights and freedoms. Please attend the vote on 7 January 2026 and oppose these dangerous plans.

{user_data~First Name} {user_data~Surname}
{user_data~Preferred Address Line 1}
{user_data~Preferred City}
{user_data~Preferred Postcode}

Lord

Robin

Granville Hodgson

House of Lords

Dear Lord Granville Hodgson

Proposals in the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill will block countless people from exercising their fundamental right to protest, risk criminalising marginalised communities, and prevent meaningful change.

I am writing to ask that you vote for amendments in the House of Lords that would safeguard our right to stand up for issues we care about.

RESTRICTING REPEAT PROTESTS

Protest has always been a part of British culture and tradition; our ability to do so is central to a healthy, functioning democracy. But clause 372 of the Crime and Policing Bill would restrict this right by giving police the power ban repeat demonstrations in a designated area.

If this is voted into law, senior police officers must consider the “cumulative disruption” caused by previous – or even future – protests in the area as a reason to ban a demonstration, regardless of whether they were organised by the same people or focused on the same issues.

They would also decide what area is restricted, with no clear rules on how big or small an area can be. This means we could see borough or city-wide bans on protests, simply because a different demonstration took place the week before.

This won't just impact frequent large-scale marches; it could restrict emergency demonstrations on issues of grave importance, or the right to organise counter protests.

Change is rarely achieved by a one-off demonstration outside Parliament; votes for women took nearly a century to achieve, as did a two-day weekend. Combined with other anti-protest measures in this Bill, banning repeat protests will have a chilling effect on how we can effectively make our voices heard and demand change.

Please VOTE AGAINST this amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill which would ban repeat demonstrations and stop people using their fundamental right to protest.

Lord Walney has also tabled an amendment which would push this “repeat protest” approach even further by creating new categories aimed at particular forms of recurring protest. This would widen the scope for pre-emptive restrictions and compound the risk that persistence itself is treated as grounds for shutting down lawful protest. 
 
Please VOTE AGAINST Government Amendment 372 and VOTE AGAINST Lord Walney’s Amendment 382E.

BANNING FACE COVERINGS AT PROTESTS

Sections 118-120 of the Crime and Policing Bill will make it a criminal offence to wear a face covering at designated protests, and police will have the power to arrest or fine anyone breaching this condition.

This would infringe on everybody’s right to decide how we protect ourselves when protesting. The lack of adequate safeguards in the Bill will particularly impact anyone who has to wear a face covering for health, religious, or privacy reasons. This could result in Muslim women, disabled people, and political dissidents being criminalised for attending protests with face coverings, and will have to prove their exemptions in court, rather than avoiding arrest in the first place.

Police already have far-reaching powers when it comes to protests, including the ability to require people to remove items if they believe they’re being used to hide their identity.

Demos polling shows that 86% of people believe everyone has the right to voice their opinion and raise awareness of issues. The Crime and Policing Bill will strip this right away from those who can only protest safely with a face covering.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part Amendments to clause remove Clauses 118-120 to scrap face covering restrictions from the Crime and Policing Bill.

BANNING PROTESTS OUTSIDE PLACES OF WORSHIP

Section 124 of the Bill also proposes giving the police powers to restrict protests ‘in the vicinity’ of places of worship.

Police already have the power to restrict protests based on their intention; this prevents genuine harm or disruption to religious communities. This new clause would instead ban protests based on the fact there is a place of worship nearby, regardless of intention, with the only criteria being that these protests could be considered ‘intimidating’.

This is an incredibly low threshold that could capture almost any protest in towns or cities across the country. Urban areas such as Westminster in Central London sees regular large-scale demonstrations outside Parliament. This entire area could now be restricted due to the numerous places of worship nearby, with no requirement to prove they are being targeted by protests.

This law risks targeting specific protest movements, from Pride marches to political demonstrations, without any evidence of religious discrimination or harassment. While the right to worship must be upheld, restricting demonstrations in this way could conflate safety concerns with our fundamental right to protest.

This law should have clear criteria that’s not open to interpretation and should only be allowed to apply when there’s a clear intent from protesters to intimidate nearby places of worship.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part amendment to remove Clause 124 from the Bill. If you are not comfortable supporting stand part, please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Blower’s Amendments 371A–371F to narrow and tighten Clause 124 by introducing clearer safeguards and limiting its scope.

FURTHER PROTEST RESTRICTIONS

Lord Davies of Gower has tabled amendments which would further restrict protest by enabling longer-lasting area bans, making it harder to organise processions quickly in response to current events, and removing the vital “reasonable excuse” safeguard that helps prevent the criminalisation of peaceful protest. Please VOTE AGAINST Amendments 382A–D.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I urge you to use your position in the House of Lords to protect our hard-won rights and freedoms. Please attend the vote on 7 January 2026 and oppose these dangerous plans.

{user_data~First Name} {user_data~Surname}
{user_data~Preferred Address Line 1}
{user_data~Preferred City}
{user_data~Preferred Postcode}

Lord

Philip

Norton

House of Lords

Dear Lord Norton

Proposals in the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill will block countless people from exercising their fundamental right to protest, risk criminalising marginalised communities, and prevent meaningful change.

I am writing to ask that you vote for amendments in the House of Lords that would safeguard our right to stand up for issues we care about.

RESTRICTING REPEAT PROTESTS

Protest has always been a part of British culture and tradition; our ability to do so is central to a healthy, functioning democracy. But clause 372 of the Crime and Policing Bill would restrict this right by giving police the power ban repeat demonstrations in a designated area.

If this is voted into law, senior police officers must consider the “cumulative disruption” caused by previous – or even future – protests in the area as a reason to ban a demonstration, regardless of whether they were organised by the same people or focused on the same issues.

They would also decide what area is restricted, with no clear rules on how big or small an area can be. This means we could see borough or city-wide bans on protests, simply because a different demonstration took place the week before.

This won't just impact frequent large-scale marches; it could restrict emergency demonstrations on issues of grave importance, or the right to organise counter protests.

Change is rarely achieved by a one-off demonstration outside Parliament; votes for women took nearly a century to achieve, as did a two-day weekend. Combined with other anti-protest measures in this Bill, banning repeat protests will have a chilling effect on how we can effectively make our voices heard and demand change.

Please VOTE AGAINST this amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill which would ban repeat demonstrations and stop people using their fundamental right to protest.

Lord Walney has also tabled an amendment which would push this “repeat protest” approach even further by creating new categories aimed at particular forms of recurring protest. This would widen the scope for pre-emptive restrictions and compound the risk that persistence itself is treated as grounds for shutting down lawful protest. 
 
Please VOTE AGAINST Government Amendment 372 and VOTE AGAINST Lord Walney’s Amendment 382E.

BANNING FACE COVERINGS AT PROTESTS

Sections 118-120 of the Crime and Policing Bill will make it a criminal offence to wear a face covering at designated protests, and police will have the power to arrest or fine anyone breaching this condition.

This would infringe on everybody’s right to decide how we protect ourselves when protesting. The lack of adequate safeguards in the Bill will particularly impact anyone who has to wear a face covering for health, religious, or privacy reasons. This could result in Muslim women, disabled people, and political dissidents being criminalised for attending protests with face coverings, and will have to prove their exemptions in court, rather than avoiding arrest in the first place.

Police already have far-reaching powers when it comes to protests, including the ability to require people to remove items if they believe they’re being used to hide their identity.

Demos polling shows that 86% of people believe everyone has the right to voice their opinion and raise awareness of issues. The Crime and Policing Bill will strip this right away from those who can only protest safely with a face covering.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part Amendments to clause remove Clauses 118-120 to scrap face covering restrictions from the Crime and Policing Bill.

BANNING PROTESTS OUTSIDE PLACES OF WORSHIP

Section 124 of the Bill also proposes giving the police powers to restrict protests ‘in the vicinity’ of places of worship.

Police already have the power to restrict protests based on their intention; this prevents genuine harm or disruption to religious communities. This new clause would instead ban protests based on the fact there is a place of worship nearby, regardless of intention, with the only criteria being that these protests could be considered ‘intimidating’.

This is an incredibly low threshold that could capture almost any protest in towns or cities across the country. Urban areas such as Westminster in Central London sees regular large-scale demonstrations outside Parliament. This entire area could now be restricted due to the numerous places of worship nearby, with no requirement to prove they are being targeted by protests.

This law risks targeting specific protest movements, from Pride marches to political demonstrations, without any evidence of religious discrimination or harassment. While the right to worship must be upheld, restricting demonstrations in this way could conflate safety concerns with our fundamental right to protest.

This law should have clear criteria that’s not open to interpretation and should only be allowed to apply when there’s a clear intent from protesters to intimidate nearby places of worship.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part amendment to remove Clause 124 from the Bill. If you are not comfortable supporting stand part, please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Blower’s Amendments 371A–371F to narrow and tighten Clause 124 by introducing clearer safeguards and limiting its scope.

FURTHER PROTEST RESTRICTIONS

Lord Davies of Gower has tabled amendments which would further restrict protest by enabling longer-lasting area bans, making it harder to organise processions quickly in response to current events, and removing the vital “reasonable excuse” safeguard that helps prevent the criminalisation of peaceful protest. Please VOTE AGAINST Amendments 382A–D.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I urge you to use your position in the House of Lords to protect our hard-won rights and freedoms. Please attend the vote on 7 January 2026 and oppose these dangerous plans.

{user_data~First Name} {user_data~Surname}
{user_data~Preferred Address Line 1}
{user_data~Preferred City}
{user_data~Preferred Postcode}

Lord

Godfrey

Bewicke-Copley

House of Lords

Dear Lord Bewicke-Copley

Proposals in the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill will block countless people from exercising their fundamental right to protest, risk criminalising marginalised communities, and prevent meaningful change.

I am writing to ask that you vote for amendments in the House of Lords that would safeguard our right to stand up for issues we care about.

RESTRICTING REPEAT PROTESTS

Protest has always been a part of British culture and tradition; our ability to do so is central to a healthy, functioning democracy. But clause 372 of the Crime and Policing Bill would restrict this right by giving police the power ban repeat demonstrations in a designated area.

If this is voted into law, senior police officers must consider the “cumulative disruption” caused by previous – or even future – protests in the area as a reason to ban a demonstration, regardless of whether they were organised by the same people or focused on the same issues.

They would also decide what area is restricted, with no clear rules on how big or small an area can be. This means we could see borough or city-wide bans on protests, simply because a different demonstration took place the week before.

This won't just impact frequent large-scale marches; it could restrict emergency demonstrations on issues of grave importance, or the right to organise counter protests.

Change is rarely achieved by a one-off demonstration outside Parliament; votes for women took nearly a century to achieve, as did a two-day weekend. Combined with other anti-protest measures in this Bill, banning repeat protests will have a chilling effect on how we can effectively make our voices heard and demand change.

Please VOTE AGAINST this amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill which would ban repeat demonstrations and stop people using their fundamental right to protest.

Lord Walney has also tabled an amendment which would push this “repeat protest” approach even further by creating new categories aimed at particular forms of recurring protest. This would widen the scope for pre-emptive restrictions and compound the risk that persistence itself is treated as grounds for shutting down lawful protest. 
 
Please VOTE AGAINST Government Amendment 372 and VOTE AGAINST Lord Walney’s Amendment 382E.

BANNING FACE COVERINGS AT PROTESTS

Sections 118-120 of the Crime and Policing Bill will make it a criminal offence to wear a face covering at designated protests, and police will have the power to arrest or fine anyone breaching this condition.

This would infringe on everybody’s right to decide how we protect ourselves when protesting. The lack of adequate safeguards in the Bill will particularly impact anyone who has to wear a face covering for health, religious, or privacy reasons. This could result in Muslim women, disabled people, and political dissidents being criminalised for attending protests with face coverings, and will have to prove their exemptions in court, rather than avoiding arrest in the first place.

Police already have far-reaching powers when it comes to protests, including the ability to require people to remove items if they believe they’re being used to hide their identity.

Demos polling shows that 86% of people believe everyone has the right to voice their opinion and raise awareness of issues. The Crime and Policing Bill will strip this right away from those who can only protest safely with a face covering.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part Amendments to clause remove Clauses 118-120 to scrap face covering restrictions from the Crime and Policing Bill.

BANNING PROTESTS OUTSIDE PLACES OF WORSHIP

Section 124 of the Bill also proposes giving the police powers to restrict protests ‘in the vicinity’ of places of worship.

Police already have the power to restrict protests based on their intention; this prevents genuine harm or disruption to religious communities. This new clause would instead ban protests based on the fact there is a place of worship nearby, regardless of intention, with the only criteria being that these protests could be considered ‘intimidating’.

This is an incredibly low threshold that could capture almost any protest in towns or cities across the country. Urban areas such as Westminster in Central London sees regular large-scale demonstrations outside Parliament. This entire area could now be restricted due to the numerous places of worship nearby, with no requirement to prove they are being targeted by protests.

This law risks targeting specific protest movements, from Pride marches to political demonstrations, without any evidence of religious discrimination or harassment. While the right to worship must be upheld, restricting demonstrations in this way could conflate safety concerns with our fundamental right to protest.

This law should have clear criteria that’s not open to interpretation and should only be allowed to apply when there’s a clear intent from protesters to intimidate nearby places of worship.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part amendment to remove Clause 124 from the Bill. If you are not comfortable supporting stand part, please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Blower’s Amendments 371A–371F to narrow and tighten Clause 124 by introducing clearer safeguards and limiting its scope.

FURTHER PROTEST RESTRICTIONS

Lord Davies of Gower has tabled amendments which would further restrict protest by enabling longer-lasting area bans, making it harder to organise processions quickly in response to current events, and removing the vital “reasonable excuse” safeguard that helps prevent the criminalisation of peaceful protest. Please VOTE AGAINST Amendments 382A–D.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I urge you to use your position in the House of Lords to protect our hard-won rights and freedoms. Please attend the vote on 7 January 2026 and oppose these dangerous plans.

{user_data~First Name} {user_data~Surname}
{user_data~Preferred Address Line 1}
{user_data~Preferred City}
{user_data~Preferred Postcode}

Baroness

Helene Valerie

Hayman

House of Lords

Dear Baroness Hayman

Proposals in the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill will block countless people from exercising their fundamental right to protest, risk criminalising marginalised communities, and prevent meaningful change.

I am writing to ask that you vote for amendments in the House of Lords that would safeguard our right to stand up for issues we care about.

RESTRICTING REPEAT PROTESTS

Protest has always been a part of British culture and tradition; our ability to do so is central to a healthy, functioning democracy. But clause 372 of the Crime and Policing Bill would restrict this right by giving police the power ban repeat demonstrations in a designated area.

If this is voted into law, senior police officers must consider the “cumulative disruption” caused by previous – or even future – protests in the area as a reason to ban a demonstration, regardless of whether they were organised by the same people or focused on the same issues.

They would also decide what area is restricted, with no clear rules on how big or small an area can be. This means we could see borough or city-wide bans on protests, simply because a different demonstration took place the week before.

This won't just impact frequent large-scale marches; it could restrict emergency demonstrations on issues of grave importance, or the right to organise counter protests.

Change is rarely achieved by a one-off demonstration outside Parliament; votes for women took nearly a century to achieve, as did a two-day weekend. Combined with other anti-protest measures in this Bill, banning repeat protests will have a chilling effect on how we can effectively make our voices heard and demand change.

Please VOTE AGAINST this amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill which would ban repeat demonstrations and stop people using their fundamental right to protest.

Lord Walney has also tabled an amendment which would push this “repeat protest” approach even further by creating new categories aimed at particular forms of recurring protest. This would widen the scope for pre-emptive restrictions and compound the risk that persistence itself is treated as grounds for shutting down lawful protest. 
 
Please VOTE AGAINST Government Amendment 372 and VOTE AGAINST Lord Walney’s Amendment 382E.

BANNING FACE COVERINGS AT PROTESTS

Sections 118-120 of the Crime and Policing Bill will make it a criminal offence to wear a face covering at designated protests, and police will have the power to arrest or fine anyone breaching this condition.

This would infringe on everybody’s right to decide how we protect ourselves when protesting. The lack of adequate safeguards in the Bill will particularly impact anyone who has to wear a face covering for health, religious, or privacy reasons. This could result in Muslim women, disabled people, and political dissidents being criminalised for attending protests with face coverings, and will have to prove their exemptions in court, rather than avoiding arrest in the first place.

Police already have far-reaching powers when it comes to protests, including the ability to require people to remove items if they believe they’re being used to hide their identity.

Demos polling shows that 86% of people believe everyone has the right to voice their opinion and raise awareness of issues. The Crime and Policing Bill will strip this right away from those who can only protest safely with a face covering.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part Amendments to clause remove Clauses 118-120 to scrap face covering restrictions from the Crime and Policing Bill.

BANNING PROTESTS OUTSIDE PLACES OF WORSHIP

Section 124 of the Bill also proposes giving the police powers to restrict protests ‘in the vicinity’ of places of worship.

Police already have the power to restrict protests based on their intention; this prevents genuine harm or disruption to religious communities. This new clause would instead ban protests based on the fact there is a place of worship nearby, regardless of intention, with the only criteria being that these protests could be considered ‘intimidating’.

This is an incredibly low threshold that could capture almost any protest in towns or cities across the country. Urban areas such as Westminster in Central London sees regular large-scale demonstrations outside Parliament. This entire area could now be restricted due to the numerous places of worship nearby, with no requirement to prove they are being targeted by protests.

This law risks targeting specific protest movements, from Pride marches to political demonstrations, without any evidence of religious discrimination or harassment. While the right to worship must be upheld, restricting demonstrations in this way could conflate safety concerns with our fundamental right to protest.

This law should have clear criteria that’s not open to interpretation and should only be allowed to apply when there’s a clear intent from protesters to intimidate nearby places of worship.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part amendment to remove Clause 124 from the Bill. If you are not comfortable supporting stand part, please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Blower’s Amendments 371A–371F to narrow and tighten Clause 124 by introducing clearer safeguards and limiting its scope.

FURTHER PROTEST RESTRICTIONS

Lord Davies of Gower has tabled amendments which would further restrict protest by enabling longer-lasting area bans, making it harder to organise processions quickly in response to current events, and removing the vital “reasonable excuse” safeguard that helps prevent the criminalisation of peaceful protest. Please VOTE AGAINST Amendments 382A–D.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I urge you to use your position in the House of Lords to protect our hard-won rights and freedoms. Please attend the vote on 7 January 2026 and oppose these dangerous plans.

{user_data~First Name} {user_data~Surname}
{user_data~Preferred Address Line 1}
{user_data~Preferred City}
{user_data~Preferred Postcode}

Lord

James

Hope

House of Lords

Dear Lord Hope

Proposals in the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill will block countless people from exercising their fundamental right to protest, risk criminalising marginalised communities, and prevent meaningful change.

I am writing to ask that you vote for amendments in the House of Lords that would safeguard our right to stand up for issues we care about.

RESTRICTING REPEAT PROTESTS

Protest has always been a part of British culture and tradition; our ability to do so is central to a healthy, functioning democracy. But clause 372 of the Crime and Policing Bill would restrict this right by giving police the power ban repeat demonstrations in a designated area.

If this is voted into law, senior police officers must consider the “cumulative disruption” caused by previous – or even future – protests in the area as a reason to ban a demonstration, regardless of whether they were organised by the same people or focused on the same issues.

They would also decide what area is restricted, with no clear rules on how big or small an area can be. This means we could see borough or city-wide bans on protests, simply because a different demonstration took place the week before.

This won't just impact frequent large-scale marches; it could restrict emergency demonstrations on issues of grave importance, or the right to organise counter protests.

Change is rarely achieved by a one-off demonstration outside Parliament; votes for women took nearly a century to achieve, as did a two-day weekend. Combined with other anti-protest measures in this Bill, banning repeat protests will have a chilling effect on how we can effectively make our voices heard and demand change.

Please VOTE AGAINST this amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill which would ban repeat demonstrations and stop people using their fundamental right to protest.

Lord Walney has also tabled an amendment which would push this “repeat protest” approach even further by creating new categories aimed at particular forms of recurring protest. This would widen the scope for pre-emptive restrictions and compound the risk that persistence itself is treated as grounds for shutting down lawful protest. 
 
Please VOTE AGAINST Government Amendment 372 and VOTE AGAINST Lord Walney’s Amendment 382E.

BANNING FACE COVERINGS AT PROTESTS

Sections 118-120 of the Crime and Policing Bill will make it a criminal offence to wear a face covering at designated protests, and police will have the power to arrest or fine anyone breaching this condition.

This would infringe on everybody’s right to decide how we protect ourselves when protesting. The lack of adequate safeguards in the Bill will particularly impact anyone who has to wear a face covering for health, religious, or privacy reasons. This could result in Muslim women, disabled people, and political dissidents being criminalised for attending protests with face coverings, and will have to prove their exemptions in court, rather than avoiding arrest in the first place.

Police already have far-reaching powers when it comes to protests, including the ability to require people to remove items if they believe they’re being used to hide their identity.

Demos polling shows that 86% of people believe everyone has the right to voice their opinion and raise awareness of issues. The Crime and Policing Bill will strip this right away from those who can only protest safely with a face covering.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part Amendments to clause remove Clauses 118-120 to scrap face covering restrictions from the Crime and Policing Bill.

BANNING PROTESTS OUTSIDE PLACES OF WORSHIP

Section 124 of the Bill also proposes giving the police powers to restrict protests ‘in the vicinity’ of places of worship.

Police already have the power to restrict protests based on their intention; this prevents genuine harm or disruption to religious communities. This new clause would instead ban protests based on the fact there is a place of worship nearby, regardless of intention, with the only criteria being that these protests could be considered ‘intimidating’.

This is an incredibly low threshold that could capture almost any protest in towns or cities across the country. Urban areas such as Westminster in Central London sees regular large-scale demonstrations outside Parliament. This entire area could now be restricted due to the numerous places of worship nearby, with no requirement to prove they are being targeted by protests.

This law risks targeting specific protest movements, from Pride marches to political demonstrations, without any evidence of religious discrimination or harassment. While the right to worship must be upheld, restricting demonstrations in this way could conflate safety concerns with our fundamental right to protest.

This law should have clear criteria that’s not open to interpretation and should only be allowed to apply when there’s a clear intent from protesters to intimidate nearby places of worship.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part amendment to remove Clause 124 from the Bill. If you are not comfortable supporting stand part, please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Blower’s Amendments 371A–371F to narrow and tighten Clause 124 by introducing clearer safeguards and limiting its scope.

FURTHER PROTEST RESTRICTIONS

Lord Davies of Gower has tabled amendments which would further restrict protest by enabling longer-lasting area bans, making it harder to organise processions quickly in response to current events, and removing the vital “reasonable excuse” safeguard that helps prevent the criminalisation of peaceful protest. Please VOTE AGAINST Amendments 382A–D.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I urge you to use your position in the House of Lords to protect our hard-won rights and freedoms. Please attend the vote on 7 January 2026 and oppose these dangerous plans.

{user_data~First Name} {user_data~Surname}
{user_data~Preferred Address Line 1}
{user_data~Preferred City}
{user_data~Preferred Postcode}

Lord

Narendra

Patel

House of Lords

Dear Lord Patel

Proposals in the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill will block countless people from exercising their fundamental right to protest, risk criminalising marginalised communities, and prevent meaningful change.

I am writing to ask that you vote for amendments in the House of Lords that would safeguard our right to stand up for issues we care about.

RESTRICTING REPEAT PROTESTS

Protest has always been a part of British culture and tradition; our ability to do so is central to a healthy, functioning democracy. But clause 372 of the Crime and Policing Bill would restrict this right by giving police the power ban repeat demonstrations in a designated area.

If this is voted into law, senior police officers must consider the “cumulative disruption” caused by previous – or even future – protests in the area as a reason to ban a demonstration, regardless of whether they were organised by the same people or focused on the same issues.

They would also decide what area is restricted, with no clear rules on how big or small an area can be. This means we could see borough or city-wide bans on protests, simply because a different demonstration took place the week before.

This won't just impact frequent large-scale marches; it could restrict emergency demonstrations on issues of grave importance, or the right to organise counter protests.

Change is rarely achieved by a one-off demonstration outside Parliament; votes for women took nearly a century to achieve, as did a two-day weekend. Combined with other anti-protest measures in this Bill, banning repeat protests will have a chilling effect on how we can effectively make our voices heard and demand change.

Please VOTE AGAINST this amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill which would ban repeat demonstrations and stop people using their fundamental right to protest.

Lord Walney has also tabled an amendment which would push this “repeat protest” approach even further by creating new categories aimed at particular forms of recurring protest. This would widen the scope for pre-emptive restrictions and compound the risk that persistence itself is treated as grounds for shutting down lawful protest. 
 
Please VOTE AGAINST Government Amendment 372 and VOTE AGAINST Lord Walney’s Amendment 382E.

BANNING FACE COVERINGS AT PROTESTS

Sections 118-120 of the Crime and Policing Bill will make it a criminal offence to wear a face covering at designated protests, and police will have the power to arrest or fine anyone breaching this condition.

This would infringe on everybody’s right to decide how we protect ourselves when protesting. The lack of adequate safeguards in the Bill will particularly impact anyone who has to wear a face covering for health, religious, or privacy reasons. This could result in Muslim women, disabled people, and political dissidents being criminalised for attending protests with face coverings, and will have to prove their exemptions in court, rather than avoiding arrest in the first place.

Police already have far-reaching powers when it comes to protests, including the ability to require people to remove items if they believe they’re being used to hide their identity.

Demos polling shows that 86% of people believe everyone has the right to voice their opinion and raise awareness of issues. The Crime and Policing Bill will strip this right away from those who can only protest safely with a face covering.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part Amendments to clause remove Clauses 118-120 to scrap face covering restrictions from the Crime and Policing Bill.

BANNING PROTESTS OUTSIDE PLACES OF WORSHIP

Section 124 of the Bill also proposes giving the police powers to restrict protests ‘in the vicinity’ of places of worship.

Police already have the power to restrict protests based on their intention; this prevents genuine harm or disruption to religious communities. This new clause would instead ban protests based on the fact there is a place of worship nearby, regardless of intention, with the only criteria being that these protests could be considered ‘intimidating’.

This is an incredibly low threshold that could capture almost any protest in towns or cities across the country. Urban areas such as Westminster in Central London sees regular large-scale demonstrations outside Parliament. This entire area could now be restricted due to the numerous places of worship nearby, with no requirement to prove they are being targeted by protests.

This law risks targeting specific protest movements, from Pride marches to political demonstrations, without any evidence of religious discrimination or harassment. While the right to worship must be upheld, restricting demonstrations in this way could conflate safety concerns with our fundamental right to protest.

This law should have clear criteria that’s not open to interpretation and should only be allowed to apply when there’s a clear intent from protesters to intimidate nearby places of worship.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part amendment to remove Clause 124 from the Bill. If you are not comfortable supporting stand part, please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Blower’s Amendments 371A–371F to narrow and tighten Clause 124 by introducing clearer safeguards and limiting its scope.

FURTHER PROTEST RESTRICTIONS

Lord Davies of Gower has tabled amendments which would further restrict protest by enabling longer-lasting area bans, making it harder to organise processions quickly in response to current events, and removing the vital “reasonable excuse” safeguard that helps prevent the criminalisation of peaceful protest. Please VOTE AGAINST Amendments 382A–D.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I urge you to use your position in the House of Lords to protect our hard-won rights and freedoms. Please attend the vote on 7 January 2026 and oppose these dangerous plans.

{user_data~First Name} {user_data~Surname}
{user_data~Preferred Address Line 1}
{user_data~Preferred City}
{user_data~Preferred Postcode}

Lord

Simon

Russell

House of Lords

Dear Lord Russell of Liverpool

Proposals in the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill will block countless people from exercising their fundamental right to protest, risk criminalising marginalised communities, and prevent meaningful change.

I am writing to ask that you vote for amendments in the House of Lords that would safeguard our right to stand up for issues we care about.

RESTRICTING REPEAT PROTESTS

Protest has always been a part of British culture and tradition; our ability to do so is central to a healthy, functioning democracy. But clause 372 of the Crime and Policing Bill would restrict this right by giving police the power ban repeat demonstrations in a designated area.

If this is voted into law, senior police officers must consider the “cumulative disruption” caused by previous – or even future – protests in the area as a reason to ban a demonstration, regardless of whether they were organised by the same people or focused on the same issues.

They would also decide what area is restricted, with no clear rules on how big or small an area can be. This means we could see borough or city-wide bans on protests, simply because a different demonstration took place the week before.

This won't just impact frequent large-scale marches; it could restrict emergency demonstrations on issues of grave importance, or the right to organise counter protests.

Change is rarely achieved by a one-off demonstration outside Parliament; votes for women took nearly a century to achieve, as did a two-day weekend. Combined with other anti-protest measures in this Bill, banning repeat protests will have a chilling effect on how we can effectively make our voices heard and demand change.

Please VOTE AGAINST this amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill which would ban repeat demonstrations and stop people using their fundamental right to protest.

Lord Walney has also tabled an amendment which would push this “repeat protest” approach even further by creating new categories aimed at particular forms of recurring protest. This would widen the scope for pre-emptive restrictions and compound the risk that persistence itself is treated as grounds for shutting down lawful protest. 
 
Please VOTE AGAINST Government Amendment 372 and VOTE AGAINST Lord Walney’s Amendment 382E.

BANNING FACE COVERINGS AT PROTESTS

Sections 118-120 of the Crime and Policing Bill will make it a criminal offence to wear a face covering at designated protests, and police will have the power to arrest or fine anyone breaching this condition.

This would infringe on everybody’s right to decide how we protect ourselves when protesting. The lack of adequate safeguards in the Bill will particularly impact anyone who has to wear a face covering for health, religious, or privacy reasons. This could result in Muslim women, disabled people, and political dissidents being criminalised for attending protests with face coverings, and will have to prove their exemptions in court, rather than avoiding arrest in the first place.

Police already have far-reaching powers when it comes to protests, including the ability to require people to remove items if they believe they’re being used to hide their identity.

Demos polling shows that 86% of people believe everyone has the right to voice their opinion and raise awareness of issues. The Crime and Policing Bill will strip this right away from those who can only protest safely with a face covering.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part Amendments to clause remove Clauses 118-120 to scrap face covering restrictions from the Crime and Policing Bill.

BANNING PROTESTS OUTSIDE PLACES OF WORSHIP

Section 124 of the Bill also proposes giving the police powers to restrict protests ‘in the vicinity’ of places of worship.

Police already have the power to restrict protests based on their intention; this prevents genuine harm or disruption to religious communities. This new clause would instead ban protests based on the fact there is a place of worship nearby, regardless of intention, with the only criteria being that these protests could be considered ‘intimidating’.

This is an incredibly low threshold that could capture almost any protest in towns or cities across the country. Urban areas such as Westminster in Central London sees regular large-scale demonstrations outside Parliament. This entire area could now be restricted due to the numerous places of worship nearby, with no requirement to prove they are being targeted by protests.

This law risks targeting specific protest movements, from Pride marches to political demonstrations, without any evidence of religious discrimination or harassment. While the right to worship must be upheld, restricting demonstrations in this way could conflate safety concerns with our fundamental right to protest.

This law should have clear criteria that’s not open to interpretation and should only be allowed to apply when there’s a clear intent from protesters to intimidate nearby places of worship.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part amendment to remove Clause 124 from the Bill. If you are not comfortable supporting stand part, please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Blower’s Amendments 371A–371F to narrow and tighten Clause 124 by introducing clearer safeguards and limiting its scope.

FURTHER PROTEST RESTRICTIONS

Lord Davies of Gower has tabled amendments which would further restrict protest by enabling longer-lasting area bans, making it harder to organise processions quickly in response to current events, and removing the vital “reasonable excuse” safeguard that helps prevent the criminalisation of peaceful protest. Please VOTE AGAINST Amendments 382A–D.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I urge you to use your position in the House of Lords to protect our hard-won rights and freedoms. Please attend the vote on 7 January 2026 and oppose these dangerous plans.

{user_data~First Name} {user_data~Surname}
{user_data~Preferred Address Line 1}
{user_data~Preferred City}
{user_data~Preferred Postcode}

Lord

Roger

Thomas of Cwmgiedd

House of Lords

Dear Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd

Proposals in the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill will block countless people from exercising their fundamental right to protest, risk criminalising marginalised communities, and prevent meaningful change.

I am writing to ask that you vote for amendments in the House of Lords that would safeguard our right to stand up for issues we care about.

RESTRICTING REPEAT PROTESTS

Protest has always been a part of British culture and tradition; our ability to do so is central to a healthy, functioning democracy. But clause 372 of the Crime and Policing Bill would restrict this right by giving police the power ban repeat demonstrations in a designated area.

If this is voted into law, senior police officers must consider the “cumulative disruption” caused by previous – or even future – protests in the area as a reason to ban a demonstration, regardless of whether they were organised by the same people or focused on the same issues.

They would also decide what area is restricted, with no clear rules on how big or small an area can be. This means we could see borough or city-wide bans on protests, simply because a different demonstration took place the week before.

This won't just impact frequent large-scale marches; it could restrict emergency demonstrations on issues of grave importance, or the right to organise counter protests.

Change is rarely achieved by a one-off demonstration outside Parliament; votes for women took nearly a century to achieve, as did a two-day weekend. Combined with other anti-protest measures in this Bill, banning repeat protests will have a chilling effect on how we can effectively make our voices heard and demand change.

Please VOTE AGAINST this amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill which would ban repeat demonstrations and stop people using their fundamental right to protest.

Lord Walney has also tabled an amendment which would push this “repeat protest” approach even further by creating new categories aimed at particular forms of recurring protest. This would widen the scope for pre-emptive restrictions and compound the risk that persistence itself is treated as grounds for shutting down lawful protest. 
 
Please VOTE AGAINST Government Amendment 372 and VOTE AGAINST Lord Walney’s Amendment 382E.

BANNING FACE COVERINGS AT PROTESTS

Sections 118-120 of the Crime and Policing Bill will make it a criminal offence to wear a face covering at designated protests, and police will have the power to arrest or fine anyone breaching this condition.

This would infringe on everybody’s right to decide how we protect ourselves when protesting. The lack of adequate safeguards in the Bill will particularly impact anyone who has to wear a face covering for health, religious, or privacy reasons. This could result in Muslim women, disabled people, and political dissidents being criminalised for attending protests with face coverings, and will have to prove their exemptions in court, rather than avoiding arrest in the first place.

Police already have far-reaching powers when it comes to protests, including the ability to require people to remove items if they believe they’re being used to hide their identity.

Demos polling shows that 86% of people believe everyone has the right to voice their opinion and raise awareness of issues. The Crime and Policing Bill will strip this right away from those who can only protest safely with a face covering.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part Amendments to clause remove Clauses 118-120 to scrap face covering restrictions from the Crime and Policing Bill.

BANNING PROTESTS OUTSIDE PLACES OF WORSHIP

Section 124 of the Bill also proposes giving the police powers to restrict protests ‘in the vicinity’ of places of worship.

Police already have the power to restrict protests based on their intention; this prevents genuine harm or disruption to religious communities. This new clause would instead ban protests based on the fact there is a place of worship nearby, regardless of intention, with the only criteria being that these protests could be considered ‘intimidating’.

This is an incredibly low threshold that could capture almost any protest in towns or cities across the country. Urban areas such as Westminster in Central London sees regular large-scale demonstrations outside Parliament. This entire area could now be restricted due to the numerous places of worship nearby, with no requirement to prove they are being targeted by protests.

This law risks targeting specific protest movements, from Pride marches to political demonstrations, without any evidence of religious discrimination or harassment. While the right to worship must be upheld, restricting demonstrations in this way could conflate safety concerns with our fundamental right to protest.

This law should have clear criteria that’s not open to interpretation and should only be allowed to apply when there’s a clear intent from protesters to intimidate nearby places of worship.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part amendment to remove Clause 124 from the Bill. If you are not comfortable supporting stand part, please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Blower’s Amendments 371A–371F to narrow and tighten Clause 124 by introducing clearer safeguards and limiting its scope.

FURTHER PROTEST RESTRICTIONS

Lord Davies of Gower has tabled amendments which would further restrict protest by enabling longer-lasting area bans, making it harder to organise processions quickly in response to current events, and removing the vital “reasonable excuse” safeguard that helps prevent the criminalisation of peaceful protest. Please VOTE AGAINST Amendments 382A–D.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I urge you to use your position in the House of Lords to protect our hard-won rights and freedoms. Please attend the vote on 7 January 2026 and oppose these dangerous plans.

{user_data~First Name} {user_data~Surname}
{user_data~Preferred Address Line 1}
{user_data~Preferred City}
{user_data~Preferred Postcode}

Baroness

Ann

Mallalieu

House of Lords

Dear Baroness Mallalieu

Proposals in the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill will block countless people from exercising their fundamental right to protest, risk criminalising marginalised communities, and prevent meaningful change.

I am writing to ask that you vote for amendments in the House of Lords that would safeguard our right to stand up for issues we care about.

RESTRICTING REPEAT PROTESTS

Protest has always been a part of British culture and tradition; our ability to do so is central to a healthy, functioning democracy. But clause 372 of the Crime and Policing Bill would restrict this right by giving police the power ban repeat demonstrations in a designated area.

If this is voted into law, senior police officers must consider the “cumulative disruption” caused by previous – or even future – protests in the area as a reason to ban a demonstration, regardless of whether they were organised by the same people or focused on the same issues.

They would also decide what area is restricted, with no clear rules on how big or small an area can be. This means we could see borough or city-wide bans on protests, simply because a different demonstration took place the week before.

This won't just impact frequent large-scale marches; it could restrict emergency demonstrations on issues of grave importance, or the right to organise counter protests.

Change is rarely achieved by a one-off demonstration outside Parliament; votes for women took nearly a century to achieve, as did a two-day weekend. Combined with other anti-protest measures in this Bill, banning repeat protests will have a chilling effect on how we can effectively make our voices heard and demand change.

Please VOTE AGAINST this amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill which would ban repeat demonstrations and stop people using their fundamental right to protest.

Lord Walney has also tabled an amendment which would push this “repeat protest” approach even further by creating new categories aimed at particular forms of recurring protest. This would widen the scope for pre-emptive restrictions and compound the risk that persistence itself is treated as grounds for shutting down lawful protest. 
 
Please VOTE AGAINST Government Amendment 372 and VOTE AGAINST Lord Walney’s Amendment 382E.

BANNING FACE COVERINGS AT PROTESTS

Sections 118-120 of the Crime and Policing Bill will make it a criminal offence to wear a face covering at designated protests, and police will have the power to arrest or fine anyone breaching this condition.

This would infringe on everybody’s right to decide how we protect ourselves when protesting. The lack of adequate safeguards in the Bill will particularly impact anyone who has to wear a face covering for health, religious, or privacy reasons. This could result in Muslim women, disabled people, and political dissidents being criminalised for attending protests with face coverings, and will have to prove their exemptions in court, rather than avoiding arrest in the first place.

Police already have far-reaching powers when it comes to protests, including the ability to require people to remove items if they believe they’re being used to hide their identity.

Demos polling shows that 86% of people believe everyone has the right to voice their opinion and raise awareness of issues. The Crime and Policing Bill will strip this right away from those who can only protest safely with a face covering.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part Amendments to clause remove Clauses 118-120 to scrap face covering restrictions from the Crime and Policing Bill.

BANNING PROTESTS OUTSIDE PLACES OF WORSHIP

Section 124 of the Bill also proposes giving the police powers to restrict protests ‘in the vicinity’ of places of worship.

Police already have the power to restrict protests based on their intention; this prevents genuine harm or disruption to religious communities. This new clause would instead ban protests based on the fact there is a place of worship nearby, regardless of intention, with the only criteria being that these protests could be considered ‘intimidating’.

This is an incredibly low threshold that could capture almost any protest in towns or cities across the country. Urban areas such as Westminster in Central London sees regular large-scale demonstrations outside Parliament. This entire area could now be restricted due to the numerous places of worship nearby, with no requirement to prove they are being targeted by protests.

This law risks targeting specific protest movements, from Pride marches to political demonstrations, without any evidence of religious discrimination or harassment. While the right to worship must be upheld, restricting demonstrations in this way could conflate safety concerns with our fundamental right to protest.

This law should have clear criteria that’s not open to interpretation and should only be allowed to apply when there’s a clear intent from protesters to intimidate nearby places of worship.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part amendment to remove Clause 124 from the Bill. If you are not comfortable supporting stand part, please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Blower’s Amendments 371A–371F to narrow and tighten Clause 124 by introducing clearer safeguards and limiting its scope.

FURTHER PROTEST RESTRICTIONS

Lord Davies of Gower has tabled amendments which would further restrict protest by enabling longer-lasting area bans, making it harder to organise processions quickly in response to current events, and removing the vital “reasonable excuse” safeguard that helps prevent the criminalisation of peaceful protest. Please VOTE AGAINST Amendments 382A–D.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I urge you to use your position in the House of Lords to protect our hard-won rights and freedoms. Please attend the vote on 7 January 2026 and oppose these dangerous plans.

{user_data~First Name} {user_data~Surname}
{user_data~Preferred Address Line 1}
{user_data~Preferred City}
{user_data~Preferred Postcode}

Baroness

Jennifer

Jones of Moulsecoomb

House of Lords

Dear Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Proposals in the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill will block countless people from exercising their fundamental right to protest, risk criminalising marginalised communities, and prevent meaningful change.

I am writing to ask that you vote for amendments in the House of Lords that would safeguard our right to stand up for issues we care about.

RESTRICTING REPEAT PROTESTS

Protest has always been a part of British culture and tradition; our ability to do so is central to a healthy, functioning democracy. But clause 372 of the Crime and Policing Bill would restrict this right by giving police the power ban repeat demonstrations in a designated area.

If this is voted into law, senior police officers must consider the “cumulative disruption” caused by previous – or even future – protests in the area as a reason to ban a demonstration, regardless of whether they were organised by the same people or focused on the same issues.

They would also decide what area is restricted, with no clear rules on how big or small an area can be. This means we could see borough or city-wide bans on protests, simply because a different demonstration took place the week before.

This won't just impact frequent large-scale marches; it could restrict emergency demonstrations on issues of grave importance, or the right to organise counter protests.

Change is rarely achieved by a one-off demonstration outside Parliament; votes for women took nearly a century to achieve, as did a two-day weekend. Combined with other anti-protest measures in this Bill, banning repeat protests will have a chilling effect on how we can effectively make our voices heard and demand change.

Please VOTE AGAINST this amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill which would ban repeat demonstrations and stop people using their fundamental right to protest.

Lord Walney has also tabled an amendment which would push this “repeat protest” approach even further by creating new categories aimed at particular forms of recurring protest. This would widen the scope for pre-emptive restrictions and compound the risk that persistence itself is treated as grounds for shutting down lawful protest. 
 
Please VOTE AGAINST Government Amendment 372 and VOTE AGAINST Lord Walney’s Amendment 382E.

BANNING FACE COVERINGS AT PROTESTS

Sections 118-120 of the Crime and Policing Bill will make it a criminal offence to wear a face covering at designated protests, and police will have the power to arrest or fine anyone breaching this condition.

This would infringe on everybody’s right to decide how we protect ourselves when protesting. The lack of adequate safeguards in the Bill will particularly impact anyone who has to wear a face covering for health, religious, or privacy reasons. This could result in Muslim women, disabled people, and political dissidents being criminalised for attending protests with face coverings, and will have to prove their exemptions in court, rather than avoiding arrest in the first place.

Police already have far-reaching powers when it comes to protests, including the ability to require people to remove items if they believe they’re being used to hide their identity.

Demos polling shows that 86% of people believe everyone has the right to voice their opinion and raise awareness of issues. The Crime and Policing Bill will strip this right away from those who can only protest safely with a face covering.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part Amendments to clause remove Clauses 118-120 to scrap face covering restrictions from the Crime and Policing Bill.

BANNING PROTESTS OUTSIDE PLACES OF WORSHIP

Section 124 of the Bill also proposes giving the police powers to restrict protests ‘in the vicinity’ of places of worship.

Police already have the power to restrict protests based on their intention; this prevents genuine harm or disruption to religious communities. This new clause would instead ban protests based on the fact there is a place of worship nearby, regardless of intention, with the only criteria being that these protests could be considered ‘intimidating’.

This is an incredibly low threshold that could capture almost any protest in towns or cities across the country. Urban areas such as Westminster in Central London sees regular large-scale demonstrations outside Parliament. This entire area could now be restricted due to the numerous places of worship nearby, with no requirement to prove they are being targeted by protests.

This law risks targeting specific protest movements, from Pride marches to political demonstrations, without any evidence of religious discrimination or harassment. While the right to worship must be upheld, restricting demonstrations in this way could conflate safety concerns with our fundamental right to protest.

This law should have clear criteria that’s not open to interpretation and should only be allowed to apply when there’s a clear intent from protesters to intimidate nearby places of worship.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part amendment to remove Clause 124 from the Bill. If you are not comfortable supporting stand part, please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Blower’s Amendments 371A–371F to narrow and tighten Clause 124 by introducing clearer safeguards and limiting its scope.

FURTHER PROTEST RESTRICTIONS

Lord Davies of Gower has tabled amendments which would further restrict protest by enabling longer-lasting area bans, making it harder to organise processions quickly in response to current events, and removing the vital “reasonable excuse” safeguard that helps prevent the criminalisation of peaceful protest. Please VOTE AGAINST Amendments 382A–D.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I urge you to use your position in the House of Lords to protect our hard-won rights and freedoms. Please attend the vote on 7 January 2026 and oppose these dangerous plans.

{user_data~First Name} {user_data~Surname}
{user_data~Preferred Address Line 1}
{user_data~Preferred City}
{user_data~Preferred Postcode}

Lord

Graham

Tope

House of Lords

Dear Lord Tope

Proposals in the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill will block countless people from exercising their fundamental right to protest, risk criminalising marginalised communities, and prevent meaningful change.

I am writing to ask that you vote for amendments in the House of Lords that would safeguard our right to stand up for issues we care about.

RESTRICTING REPEAT PROTESTS

Protest has always been a part of British culture and tradition; our ability to do so is central to a healthy, functioning democracy. But clause 372 of the Crime and Policing Bill would restrict this right by giving police the power ban repeat demonstrations in a designated area.

If this is voted into law, senior police officers must consider the “cumulative disruption” caused by previous – or even future – protests in the area as a reason to ban a demonstration, regardless of whether they were organised by the same people or focused on the same issues.

They would also decide what area is restricted, with no clear rules on how big or small an area can be. This means we could see borough or city-wide bans on protests, simply because a different demonstration took place the week before.

This won't just impact frequent large-scale marches; it could restrict emergency demonstrations on issues of grave importance, or the right to organise counter protests.

Change is rarely achieved by a one-off demonstration outside Parliament; votes for women took nearly a century to achieve, as did a two-day weekend. Combined with other anti-protest measures in this Bill, banning repeat protests will have a chilling effect on how we can effectively make our voices heard and demand change.

Please VOTE AGAINST this amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill which would ban repeat demonstrations and stop people using their fundamental right to protest.

Lord Walney has also tabled an amendment which would push this “repeat protest” approach even further by creating new categories aimed at particular forms of recurring protest. This would widen the scope for pre-emptive restrictions and compound the risk that persistence itself is treated as grounds for shutting down lawful protest. 
 
Please VOTE AGAINST Government Amendment 372 and VOTE AGAINST Lord Walney’s Amendment 382E.

BANNING FACE COVERINGS AT PROTESTS

Sections 118-120 of the Crime and Policing Bill will make it a criminal offence to wear a face covering at designated protests, and police will have the power to arrest or fine anyone breaching this condition.

This would infringe on everybody’s right to decide how we protect ourselves when protesting. The lack of adequate safeguards in the Bill will particularly impact anyone who has to wear a face covering for health, religious, or privacy reasons. This could result in Muslim women, disabled people, and political dissidents being criminalised for attending protests with face coverings, and will have to prove their exemptions in court, rather than avoiding arrest in the first place.

Police already have far-reaching powers when it comes to protests, including the ability to require people to remove items if they believe they’re being used to hide their identity.

Demos polling shows that 86% of people believe everyone has the right to voice their opinion and raise awareness of issues. The Crime and Policing Bill will strip this right away from those who can only protest safely with a face covering.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part Amendments to clause remove Clauses 118-120 to scrap face covering restrictions from the Crime and Policing Bill.

BANNING PROTESTS OUTSIDE PLACES OF WORSHIP

Section 124 of the Bill also proposes giving the police powers to restrict protests ‘in the vicinity’ of places of worship.

Police already have the power to restrict protests based on their intention; this prevents genuine harm or disruption to religious communities. This new clause would instead ban protests based on the fact there is a place of worship nearby, regardless of intention, with the only criteria being that these protests could be considered ‘intimidating’.

This is an incredibly low threshold that could capture almost any protest in towns or cities across the country. Urban areas such as Westminster in Central London sees regular large-scale demonstrations outside Parliament. This entire area could now be restricted due to the numerous places of worship nearby, with no requirement to prove they are being targeted by protests.

This law risks targeting specific protest movements, from Pride marches to political demonstrations, without any evidence of religious discrimination or harassment. While the right to worship must be upheld, restricting demonstrations in this way could conflate safety concerns with our fundamental right to protest.

This law should have clear criteria that’s not open to interpretation and should only be allowed to apply when there’s a clear intent from protesters to intimidate nearby places of worship.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part amendment to remove Clause 124 from the Bill. If you are not comfortable supporting stand part, please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Blower’s Amendments 371A–371F to narrow and tighten Clause 124 by introducing clearer safeguards and limiting its scope.

FURTHER PROTEST RESTRICTIONS

Lord Davies of Gower has tabled amendments which would further restrict protest by enabling longer-lasting area bans, making it harder to organise processions quickly in response to current events, and removing the vital “reasonable excuse” safeguard that helps prevent the criminalisation of peaceful protest. Please VOTE AGAINST Amendments 382A–D.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I urge you to use your position in the House of Lords to protect our hard-won rights and freedoms. Please attend the vote on 7 January 2026 and oppose these dangerous plans.

{user_data~First Name} {user_data~Surname}
{user_data~Preferred Address Line 1}
{user_data~Preferred City}
{user_data~Preferred Postcode}

Lord

David Philip

Pannick

House of Lords

Dear Lord Pannick

Proposals in the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill will block countless people from exercising their fundamental right to protest, risk criminalising marginalised communities, and prevent meaningful change.

I am writing to ask that you vote for amendments in the House of Lords that would safeguard our right to stand up for issues we care about.

RESTRICTING REPEAT PROTESTS

Protest has always been a part of British culture and tradition; our ability to do so is central to a healthy, functioning democracy. But clause 372 of the Crime and Policing Bill would restrict this right by giving police the power ban repeat demonstrations in a designated area.

If this is voted into law, senior police officers must consider the “cumulative disruption” caused by previous – or even future – protests in the area as a reason to ban a demonstration, regardless of whether they were organised by the same people or focused on the same issues.

They would also decide what area is restricted, with no clear rules on how big or small an area can be. This means we could see borough or city-wide bans on protests, simply because a different demonstration took place the week before.

This won't just impact frequent large-scale marches; it could restrict emergency demonstrations on issues of grave importance, or the right to organise counter protests.

Change is rarely achieved by a one-off demonstration outside Parliament; votes for women took nearly a century to achieve, as did a two-day weekend. Combined with other anti-protest measures in this Bill, banning repeat protests will have a chilling effect on how we can effectively make our voices heard and demand change.

Please VOTE AGAINST this amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill which would ban repeat demonstrations and stop people using their fundamental right to protest.

Lord Walney has also tabled an amendment which would push this “repeat protest” approach even further by creating new categories aimed at particular forms of recurring protest. This would widen the scope for pre-emptive restrictions and compound the risk that persistence itself is treated as grounds for shutting down lawful protest. 
 
Please VOTE AGAINST Government Amendment 372 and VOTE AGAINST Lord Walney’s Amendment 382E.

BANNING FACE COVERINGS AT PROTESTS

Sections 118-120 of the Crime and Policing Bill will make it a criminal offence to wear a face covering at designated protests, and police will have the power to arrest or fine anyone breaching this condition.

This would infringe on everybody’s right to decide how we protect ourselves when protesting. The lack of adequate safeguards in the Bill will particularly impact anyone who has to wear a face covering for health, religious, or privacy reasons. This could result in Muslim women, disabled people, and political dissidents being criminalised for attending protests with face coverings, and will have to prove their exemptions in court, rather than avoiding arrest in the first place.

Police already have far-reaching powers when it comes to protests, including the ability to require people to remove items if they believe they’re being used to hide their identity.

Demos polling shows that 86% of people believe everyone has the right to voice their opinion and raise awareness of issues. The Crime and Policing Bill will strip this right away from those who can only protest safely with a face covering.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part Amendments to clause remove Clauses 118-120 to scrap face covering restrictions from the Crime and Policing Bill.

BANNING PROTESTS OUTSIDE PLACES OF WORSHIP

Section 124 of the Bill also proposes giving the police powers to restrict protests ‘in the vicinity’ of places of worship.

Police already have the power to restrict protests based on their intention; this prevents genuine harm or disruption to religious communities. This new clause would instead ban protests based on the fact there is a place of worship nearby, regardless of intention, with the only criteria being that these protests could be considered ‘intimidating’.

This is an incredibly low threshold that could capture almost any protest in towns or cities across the country. Urban areas such as Westminster in Central London sees regular large-scale demonstrations outside Parliament. This entire area could now be restricted due to the numerous places of worship nearby, with no requirement to prove they are being targeted by protests.

This law risks targeting specific protest movements, from Pride marches to political demonstrations, without any evidence of religious discrimination or harassment. While the right to worship must be upheld, restricting demonstrations in this way could conflate safety concerns with our fundamental right to protest.

This law should have clear criteria that’s not open to interpretation and should only be allowed to apply when there’s a clear intent from protesters to intimidate nearby places of worship.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part amendment to remove Clause 124 from the Bill. If you are not comfortable supporting stand part, please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Blower’s Amendments 371A–371F to narrow and tighten Clause 124 by introducing clearer safeguards and limiting its scope.

FURTHER PROTEST RESTRICTIONS

Lord Davies of Gower has tabled amendments which would further restrict protest by enabling longer-lasting area bans, making it harder to organise processions quickly in response to current events, and removing the vital “reasonable excuse” safeguard that helps prevent the criminalisation of peaceful protest. Please VOTE AGAINST Amendments 382A–D.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I urge you to use your position in the House of Lords to protect our hard-won rights and freedoms. Please attend the vote on 7 January 2026 and oppose these dangerous plans.

{user_data~First Name} {user_data~Surname}
{user_data~Preferred Address Line 1}
{user_data~Preferred City}
{user_data~Preferred Postcode}

Lord

Brinley

Davies

House of Lords

Dear Lord Davies

Proposals in the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill will block countless people from exercising their fundamental right to protest, risk criminalising marginalised communities, and prevent meaningful change.

I am writing to ask that you vote for amendments in the House of Lords that would safeguard our right to stand up for issues we care about.

RESTRICTING REPEAT PROTESTS

Protest has always been a part of British culture and tradition; our ability to do so is central to a healthy, functioning democracy. But clause 372 of the Crime and Policing Bill would restrict this right by giving police the power ban repeat demonstrations in a designated area.

If this is voted into law, senior police officers must consider the “cumulative disruption” caused by previous – or even future – protests in the area as a reason to ban a demonstration, regardless of whether they were organised by the same people or focused on the same issues.

They would also decide what area is restricted, with no clear rules on how big or small an area can be. This means we could see borough or city-wide bans on protests, simply because a different demonstration took place the week before.

This won't just impact frequent large-scale marches; it could restrict emergency demonstrations on issues of grave importance, or the right to organise counter protests.

Change is rarely achieved by a one-off demonstration outside Parliament; votes for women took nearly a century to achieve, as did a two-day weekend. Combined with other anti-protest measures in this Bill, banning repeat protests will have a chilling effect on how we can effectively make our voices heard and demand change.

Please VOTE AGAINST this amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill which would ban repeat demonstrations and stop people using their fundamental right to protest.

Lord Walney has also tabled an amendment which would push this “repeat protest” approach even further by creating new categories aimed at particular forms of recurring protest. This would widen the scope for pre-emptive restrictions and compound the risk that persistence itself is treated as grounds for shutting down lawful protest. 
 
Please VOTE AGAINST Government Amendment 372 and VOTE AGAINST Lord Walney’s Amendment 382E.

BANNING FACE COVERINGS AT PROTESTS

Sections 118-120 of the Crime and Policing Bill will make it a criminal offence to wear a face covering at designated protests, and police will have the power to arrest or fine anyone breaching this condition.

This would infringe on everybody’s right to decide how we protect ourselves when protesting. The lack of adequate safeguards in the Bill will particularly impact anyone who has to wear a face covering for health, religious, or privacy reasons. This could result in Muslim women, disabled people, and political dissidents being criminalised for attending protests with face coverings, and will have to prove their exemptions in court, rather than avoiding arrest in the first place.

Police already have far-reaching powers when it comes to protests, including the ability to require people to remove items if they believe they’re being used to hide their identity.

Demos polling shows that 86% of people believe everyone has the right to voice their opinion and raise awareness of issues. The Crime and Policing Bill will strip this right away from those who can only protest safely with a face covering.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part Amendments to clause remove Clauses 118-120 to scrap face covering restrictions from the Crime and Policing Bill.

BANNING PROTESTS OUTSIDE PLACES OF WORSHIP

Section 124 of the Bill also proposes giving the police powers to restrict protests ‘in the vicinity’ of places of worship.

Police already have the power to restrict protests based on their intention; this prevents genuine harm or disruption to religious communities. This new clause would instead ban protests based on the fact there is a place of worship nearby, regardless of intention, with the only criteria being that these protests could be considered ‘intimidating’.

This is an incredibly low threshold that could capture almost any protest in towns or cities across the country. Urban areas such as Westminster in Central London sees regular large-scale demonstrations outside Parliament. This entire area could now be restricted due to the numerous places of worship nearby, with no requirement to prove they are being targeted by protests.

This law risks targeting specific protest movements, from Pride marches to political demonstrations, without any evidence of religious discrimination or harassment. While the right to worship must be upheld, restricting demonstrations in this way could conflate safety concerns with our fundamental right to protest.

This law should have clear criteria that’s not open to interpretation and should only be allowed to apply when there’s a clear intent from protesters to intimidate nearby places of worship.

Please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Jones’ stand part amendment to remove Clause 124 from the Bill. If you are not comfortable supporting stand part, please VOTE IN FAVOUR of Baroness Blower’s Amendments 371A–371F to narrow and tighten Clause 124 by introducing clearer safeguards and limiting its scope.

FURTHER PROTEST RESTRICTIONS

Lord Davies of Gower has tabled amendments which would further restrict protest by enabling longer-lasting area bans, making it harder to organise processions quickly in response to current events, and removing the vital “reasonable excuse” safeguard that helps prevent the criminalisation of peaceful protest. Please VOTE AGAINST Amendments 382A–D.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I urge you to use your position in the House of Lords to protect our hard-won rights and freedoms. Please attend the vote on 7 January 2026 and oppose these dangerous plans.

{user_data~First Name} {user_data~Surname}
{user_data~Preferred Address Line 1}
{user_data~Preferred City}
{user_data~Preferred Postcode}

Email the House of Lords