The People's Movement campaign in Oxfordshire & Berkshire stoked controversy today as senior Tory /u/InfernoPlato accused their latest billboard campaign of being defamatory.

The posters stated that the Government “wants to use chemical agents… on peaceful protesters”. This follows the Government's controversial effort to repeal the Protest Policing Reform Act, which, among other things, prohibited the use of tear gas and kettling on protesters.

Many opposition parties have united to condemn the Government as the “Tear Gas Coalition” for attempting to repeal these measures, although Government spokespeople have repeatedly stated that their aim was not to allow the use of tear gas on peaceful protesters, but to provide the police with more flexibility when addressing difficult protest crowds.

The Times contacted the Home Secretary /u/cthulhuiscool2 about the poster, and he said, “It appears the People's Movement has embarked on a campaign of untruth and distortion. Whether it constitutes as libel, I will defer to the better judgement of legal minds. I would however urge the People's Movement to retract that particular advert and issue an apology to the electorate.” We then asked him about the prospect of police using tear gas on peaceful protesters, as at Warwick University in 2014, and he said, “I will not comment on individual cases.” When asked to elaborate, he said he had "no further comment".

The originator of the poster, /u/Sam-irl, told The Times, “Essentially, the Government is repealing a bill that forbids the use of tear gas on protesters... if the bill they've put out passes, there's nothing to stop police officers using tear gas at protests.” When pressed on the Government's insistence that the repeal would not in fact result in the use of tear gas on peaceful protesters, he said, “The Government claims they won't allow it, then repeals the legislation forbidding it? I'm not sure how that works.” This raises the question of whether the poster implied violent protests ought to be subjected to tear gas. “Absolutely not. Not only is tear gas barbaric, it's ineffective. The risk of bystanders being impacted is too high, and there's numerous recorded fatalities from the deployment of tear gas.” Why, then, did the poster call out peaceful protests specifically? Does it exaggerate? “I wouldn't say it exaggerates - it's factual. I'll agree it gets people's attention.”

Legal convention suggests that the Government cannot sue for defamation, but this does not necessarily rule out private action against those involved. Neither the Government nor the Electoral Commission has indicated if it will attempt to censure the People's Movement’s poster campaign.

The Government has issued an official response:

"Legal action was at no point threatened, there will be no legal action.

We wish to strongly state that our proposal would not allow for any peaceful protest to be targeted. The purpose of protest policing is to facilitate peaceful protests, deter violence and if needs be respond to violence.

The government supports senior police officers having the power to in extreme circumstances where for example life is threatened to be use a wider range of tactics. The choice is not between peaceful protests being suppressed and the status quo, the bill simply allows Parliament to better protect the public by making more non-lethal tools available to police to be used within the law."