A POLICE boss who describes himself as an “experienced protester” says a report on how protests are policed is one sided, illiberal and undermines civil and political rights.

North Wales Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) Arfon Jones is so concerned that he has written to Home Secretary Priti Patel to complain about it.

Mr Jones, who is a former police inspector, claims that the controversial Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill will prevent protest as we know it today and is not in the public interest.

He said: “Although equilibrium should be struck between individual rights to protest and the general interests of the community, I simply do not agree the balance tips too readily in favour of protestors.

“The recommendations in the report are one sided, illiberal and undermine civil and political rights and are not in the public interest.

“The new powers in the proposed act are not necessary and will prevent protest as we know today. The whole purpose of protest is to disrupt and to seek change.

“The police have enough powers to police protests and do not need more.”

The UK Government used the report by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, Fire and Rescue Service (HMICFRS),“Getting the balance right?”, when they were drafting the controversial Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill.

According to the inspectors, the balance had tipped too heavily in favour of protesters.

The legislation will give the police powers to set start and end times for static protests and stop protests if they are judged to be too noisy or too “disruptive”.

Protesters face fines of up to £2,500 and up to 10 years in jail if they are convicted.

Mr Jones continued: “I do not believe that HMICFRS have the balance right in this report and as an experienced protestor for the last 50 years the perception that police are favourable towards protestors rights is a fallacy.

“Policing protests has always been, and always will be, a tool of the state to control its citizens and I will have no truck with it.

“Automatic Facial Recognition in non-violent protests is a privacy intrusion and should not be used.

“Non-violent protests should be policed as events not as a public order exercise.

“In a democracy the right to protest sometimes means people are inconvenienced, such is the price of living in a society where voicing support for a cause of your choosing is permitted.

“The effect on free expression will be substantial.”