Markus Andrews

A Turkish technology company said it will give free drones to Ukraine after learning of a grassroots campaign which raised 20 million US dollars (£16.3 million) to buy them.The Serhiy Prytula Foundation was set to buy Kyiv’s forces four Bayraktar TB2 drones after citizens and international supporters donated in huge numbers.But in a statement tweeted on Monday, technology firm Baykar said: “Baykar will not accept payment for the TB2s, and will send 3 UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) free of charge to the Ukrainian war front.“We ask that raised funds be remitted instead to the struggling people of Ukraine.“We are touched by their solidarity and resolve in the face of seemingly insurmountable challenges.“Baykar prays for a just resolution and lasting peace.”Led by Ukrainian actor and politician Serhiy Prytula, The People’s Bayraktar Project surpassed its original target of raising 15 million dollars (£12.2 million) to buy three Baykar Bayraktar TB2 drones.“Thank you for appreciating the ability of Ukrainians to unite! We are impressed with your decision!” Mr Prytula tweeted in response.“The saved funds will be spent to ensure our victory in close cooperation with the Armed Forces of Ukraine!”According to Mr Prytula, the majority of donations in Ukraine have been between two and 200 hryvnias (between 55p and £5.50), with large numbers of people donating small amounts they can afford.“Literally everybody is involved,” Ukrainian MP Inna Sovsun told the PA news agency. “It is so much part of the culture, everybody is doing it.”Grassroots foundations in Ukraine have seen the country’s citizens band together to provide their military with protection, supplies, and commercially available equipment that can be adapted for military use.The largest groups are now setting their sights on the kind of weapons usually only purchased by governments.Many were set up in the wake of Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea and occupation of regions in the Donbas.That includes the Serhiy Prytula Foundation and the established Povernys Zhyvym, whose name means “Come Back Alive”, which has raised more than 130 million dollars (£106 million) in donations since February 24.As well as the larger foundations, there are many small-scale local drives to provide soldiers with equipment.“There are many minor initiatives,” Ms Sovsun said.“For instance, a unit from a small town is being sent to the battle line and the whole town starts gathering money to buy what they can.”

Projects such as this (mean) we can support Ukraine’s fight in a tangible mannerNadine Alexander, 43, from DusseldorfThe foundations can move faster than the government when it comes to providing critical help to Ukrainian fighters.“They also know who they are doing it for; you’re buying stuff for your husband or wife (who is) serving,” Ms Sovsun added.According to Ms Sovsun, the crowd-funded groups have been strategically significant, with half the commercial drones used by the Ukrainian army provided by Come Back Alive.“It has a big influence on the army,” she said.“They were buying better-protected computers for the air defence systems, which helped to co-ordinate it better in February 2022.”Ukraine’s crowd-funding initiatives have gained traction abroad too, with The People’s Bayraktar Project receiving donations from as far as the US and Indonesia.Nadine Alexander, 43, from Dusseldorf, said donating allowed her to provide Ukraine with weapons directly.“The German government’s reaction has been much too slow,” she told PA.“Projects such as this (mean) we can support Ukraine’s fight in a tangible manner.“It is in our common interest that Ukraine prevails in this war.”Bayraktar TB2 drones have taken on a cult status in Ukraine; they have been the subject of folk songs, appeared on postage stamps and had animals named after them.“Bayraktars have become famous,” said Ms Sovsun, “I don’t even know the number of songs that have been dedicated to (them).“There were many jokes… Ukrainian soldiers naming their dogs Bayraktar.“You have to understand the general spirit of the people; (the drone) has been saving lives.”For more information about the Serhiy Prytula Foundation, visit: prytulafoundation.org/en More

The government’s flagship Universal Credit benefits system has driven an increase in the crime rate across Britain, a new study has found.Researchers at University College London studying the roll-out of the new system found there was “salient and plausible evidence linking UC to an increase in recorded crime”.The peer-reviewed findings, published in the British Journal of Criminology, are the latest piece of evidence adding to a growing body of work suggesting less generous social security systems drive increases in lawbreaking.The study’s base model suggested UC – which puts more restrictive conditions on claimants – “led to a 6.5 per cent increase in crime during the five-year period we look at, 2013-2018”.Crime has soared up the political agenda in recent years, and in 2019 overtook health as the second most important issue for voters after Brexit, according to pollsters YouGov. While the situation has varied, especially during the pandemic, the issue has remained close to the top of priorities since.The researchers were able to track UC’s relationship with increased reported crime because it was rolled out in different areas of the country at different times, effectively at random.Their study controlled for other factors linked with increases in the crime rate, such as cuts in the number of police officers, cuts to local services, and improvements or deteriorations in the economic situation.It concluded: “While it is impossible to comprehensively prove causation from a single, observational study, our results provide salient and plausible evidence linking UC to an increase in recorded crime. “Not only does the crime rate increase as the number of claimants rises, but the introduction of UC to each area also coincides with a shift in the long run trend in crime.”Dr Matteo Tiratelli, the lead author of the UCL study, told The Independent: “You can see it: when particular places institute Universal Credit, the change happens afterwards, and the length of time that different places have been under the Universal Credit system, those places have seen higher crime rates than others.”He added that there was “a growing evidence base that says restrictive social security systems, in general, do lead to higher crime rates”.The link between UC and crime was so pronounced, Dr Tiratelli said, that there were “clear” policy implications for how to address the crime rate.”One of the things that I find interesting about it is if you look at the scale of the effects not just Universal Credit, but also other changes around the world to social security, the effects on crime are much bigger than the effects of policing initiatives that we tend to turn to when we want to reduce crime,” he said.”So if we look at the impact of rolling out new ways of doing policing, or increasing stop and search or increasing funding to the police etc, the kinds of effects we’re seeing from social policy more generally are at least as big as those from crime-focused police initiatives. I think the policy implications of that are quite clear.”He said that while types of crime driven were often property-related – suggesting people might be trying to supplement their incomes – that this was not always the case.”The effects seem to be quite broad: it’s not just about survival crime where people are pushed to breaking point because of poverty and they resort to property crime to supplement their income, it doesn’t seem to be just that that’s happening: it also seems to be the strain, stress in general this big restriction on how generous the social security system is has led to people becoming stressed in all different areas of their life,” he said, adding that much increase was “to do with a much broader stress and strain, disruption in relationships and family units that are caused by a reduction in generosity of our social security system”. Previous research has suggested a link between UC and an increase in domestic violence.The findings tally with other evidence from around the world, including in the US and Europe, that less generous social social security systems tend to push up the crime mate.Another paper published by researchers at the University of Sussex in July 2020 also found a similar link. Economist Rocco d’Este found UC “had caused around 45,000 burglaries” and said evidence suggested that “crimogenic effects” were “expected to grow considerably by the time UC is fully rolled out” to 6.5 million further people.That paper’s analysis also suggested that “the worsening of benefit recipients’ financial conditions” was “the key mechanism”.Dr Tiratelli, who worked on the paper with researchers Ben Bradford and Julia Yesberg, said: “No one piece of evidence is going to completely clinch the argument, but using the data, looking at it in different ways, different researchers looking at it in slightly different ways, we’re all coming around to the same conclusion that there does seem to have been an effect of Universal Credit on crime.”He added that the findings “fits with the international picture more generally”.In the US, a study by the National Bureau of Economic Research published earlier this month found that benefit cuts across the Atlantic had greatly increased the chance that affected people would end up in the criminal justice system. The Office for Budget Responsibility in 2016 recognised that that Universal Credit was “now less generous on average than the tax credits and benefits systems that it replaces” due to cuts in the programme implemented in 2015 by George Osborne, especially in the work allowance.But other parts of the system are more punitive by design, including a mandatory five-week waiting period for benefits which drives claimants into rent arrears and debt, harsh deductions from payments, and strict conditionality requirements and sanctions.In July 2020 the House of Lords Economic Affairs committee said in a report that UC “has features that are harming many, particularly the most vulnerable”.The five-week waiting period for the first payment “increases extreme poverty and harms vulnerable groups disproportionately”, they said, while “deductions from Universal Credit awards have left some claimants with an income that is substantially lower than their essential needs”.On conditionality and sanctions, the report said: “The extent of conditionality has been increased significantly over recent years and too often to the detriment of claimants.”The UK has some of the most punitive sanctions in the world, but there is limited evidence that they have a positive effect. “Removing people’s main source of support for extended periods risks pushing them into extreme poverty, indebtedness and reliance on foodbanks. Furthermore, there is a great deal of evidence that sanctions, and the threat of sanctions, are harmful to claimants’ mental health.”The cross-party committee of peers added: “Universal Credit can disadvantage women, disabled people and BAME people.” “It is also linked to soaring food bank usage. Housing providers have reported dramatic increases in rent arrears. Many claimants report finding the system incomprehensible. Universal Credit’s reputation has nosedived.”Responding to the new study on the link between UC and crime, the Department for Work and Pensions denied that the evidence existed.A government spokesperson said: “There is no evidence Universal Credit causes crime and the report’s authors themselves acknowledge it is impossible to prove the cause of criminal behaviour from a single, observational study.“Universal Credit provides a strong financial safety net: it is more generous overall than the old system and makes it easier for people to claim support they are entitled to.” More

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s bid to rip up parts of the post-Brexit trade deal he signed with the European Union has cleared its first hurdle in Parliament, despite warnings from opponents that the move is illegal. Lawmakers voted 295 to 221 late Monday to give initial approval to a bill allowing U.K. officials to rewrite trade rules for Northern Ireland. The vote clears the way for the bill to undergo detailed scrutiny in coming weeks.If approved, the legislation would remove checks on goods entering Northern Ireland from the rest of the U.K., thereby scrapping parts of a trade treaty that Johnson signed before Britain left the EU in 2020.The British government says the rules, known as the Northern Ireland Protocol, are burdening businesses and undermining peace in Northern Ireland. It argues the unilateral move is justified under international law because of the “genuinely exceptional situation.” Johnson’s opponents say the move is illegal and that going ahead will seriously damage Britain’s international reputation.The EU has threatened to retaliate against the U.K. if it goes ahead with its plan to rewrite the rules of the post-Brexit deal, raising the specter of a trade war between the two major economic partners.Johnson said he believed the plan could become law by the end of the year if Parliament cooperates. The government wants to fast-track the bill through Parliament before lawmakers take their summer break.Northern Ireland is the only part of the U.K. that shares a border with an EU country, Ireland. When Britain left the European Union and its borderless free-trade zone, the two sides agreed to keep the Irish land border free of customs posts and other checks because an open border is a key pillar of the peace process that ended decades of violence in Northern Ireland.Instead, to protect the EU’s single market, there are checks on some goods, such as meat and eggs, entering Northern Ireland from the rest of the U.K.Johnson’s Conservative government claims overzealous EU implementation means the rules are not working as expected and are causing a political crisis in Northern Ireland. ___Follow all AP stories on Brexit at https://apnews.com/hub/Brexit More

One of the UK’s most respected diplomats has accused Boris Johnson of planning three separate breaches of international law, warning that trust in the UK abroad is being shredded.Kim Darroch, a former national security adviser and US ambassador, has attacked plans to neuter commitments to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), arguing they will violate the Good Friday Agreement.In an interview with The Independent, he said the threat sits alongside moves to tear up the Brexit deal for Northern Ireland and to deport refugees to Rwanda, breaking the Geneva Convention.“I think you can argue that this government is breaching international law in three areas,” Lord Darroch argued.Seizing on Dominic Raab’s plans to allow the UK to ignore ECHR rulings, the crossbench peer warned: “The ECHR is enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement as a guarantee of the rights of all individuals in Northern Ireland.“Now they want to effectively disapply, by domestic law, some parts of the ECHR, and that looks to me to be in danger of breaching our commitments in the Good Friday Agreement”.Pointing to the damage to the UK’s reputation abroad, Lord Darroch added: “Everything I pick up from people in the Brussels institutions is that trust in the British government has broken down.”In the interview, the chair of the internationalist campaign group Best for Britain also argued that voters would welcome Mr Johnson sitting down with the EU to strike a better Brexit deal to ease severe economic damage to the UK.He ruled out an early return to the single market or customs union – despite the benefits that would bring – “certainly not in this parliament and perhaps not in the next one either”.However, calling for side deals to soften the pain for exporters, scientists shut out of the Horizon project and the City of London, Lord Darroch said: “I think people would see agreements of this kind as common sense.”The peer, who is also a former UK ambassador to the EU, argued that most voters never backed “the hardest of Brexits that satisfies a section of the Conservative Party”. More

The Conservative MP who organised the campaign that toppled Theresa May is running in party elections to prepare for a fresh push to bring down Boris Johnson.Steve Baker hopes a seat on the executive of the powerful 1922 Committee of backbenchers will allow him to change the rules to allow another no-confidence vote – if necessary.The serial rebel described the prime minister’s position as “intolerable” if he is found to have lied to parliament over the scandal of the No 10 parties, many of which he attended.He said: “If he were not to resign in those circumstances, it may prove necessary to take action to remove him. It is one thing to make an inadvertent error, but intolerable to deliberately mislead.”Mr Baker added: “We should not change the rules and vote again lightly. However, there are foreseeable circumstances in which the 1922 may need to act.”The former head of the European Research Group of pro-Brexit MPs also warned Mr Johnson against calling a snap general election to avoid a resignation – an idea floated by No 10.“If the prime minister were to attempt to avoid publication of the report of the privileges committee by calling a general election, that might require action,” he told The Times.The Independent revealed that the new 18-strong executive is set to be chosen on 13 July – sparking a battle between supporters and opponents of the prime minister.Party rules currently prevent a second no-confidence vote within 12 months – which would mean until next June, after a badly-bruised Mr Johnson won a vote earlier this month – but they could be changed.Mr Baker played a key role in the events that forced Mrs May’s resignation in 2019, by rallying hardline Tory MPs to continue to oppose her Brexit deal in the final meaningful vote.He told them he was “consumed by a ferocious rage after that pantomime of sycophancy and bullying”, describing attempts to force backbenchers into line.The pressure on Mr Johnson is very different – chiefly focusing on his character failings and honesty, rather than a specific policy clash – but is still very real.He has fuelled Tory anger rejecting calls to change style and insisting much of the criticism of him “doesn’t matter”, while floating the idea of staying in power until 2030.Senior MPs spoke out after the prime minister mocked the idea of him undergoing a “psychological transformation” to recover from disastrous by-election defeats, saying: “That’s not going to happen.”Only backbenchers can serve on the 1922 Committee executive – and ministers and whips are not allowed to vote in the elections.Mr Baker said it should be “slow to change well-established rules which promote political stability, but quick and resolute to act if it proves essential”, telling fellow Tories: “That is what I hope to provide.” More

Defence secretary Ben Wallace is set to issue a call for a significant hike in government spending on the UK’s armed forces in the face of Russian aggression.The senior cabinet minister has reportedly asked Boris Johnson to increase the country’s military spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP – an additional 20 per cent a year.In a letter, Mr Wallace urged him to call on fellow Nato leaders to raise their own spending from the current minimum target of 2 per cent to 2.5 per cent of national income, according to Talk TV.The defence secretary is expected to issue his call for a boost in spending following Vladimir Putin’s brutual invasion of Ukraine at the Royal United Services Institute think tank on Tuesday.His call comes as Mr Johnson prepares to join other Nato leaders in Madrid on Tuesday for a summit at which they are expected to agree the biggest overhaul of the Western alliance since the end of the Cold War.A defence source did not deny reports of Mr Wallace’s letter to No 10, saying the defence secretary and the PM “have always said that the government will respond to any changes in threat which is why in 2020 the Ministry of Defence received a record defence settlement”.Nato will hugely increase the number of troops placed on “high readiness” in its rapid response force from 40,000 to over 300,000, secretary general Jens Stoltenberg announced on Monday.The Independent understands that the UK will boost the number of troops committed to Nato’s response force, though British units will be part of a “high alert” standby force rather than deployed immediately to eastern Europe.Meanwhile, Tobias Ellwood, the Conservative chair of the defence select committee, called for an even higher defence spending increase to 3 per cent.The senior Tory MP tweeted: “Increasing NATO’s Rapid Reaction Force from 40k to 300k is the right call.”He added: “But if the UK’s to play it’s part (as Europe’s security declines) we must finally: increase defence spend to 3 per cent, reverse troop number cuts, purchase all 138 F35s, upgrade our land warfare assets”.Mr Wallace reportedly highlighted deficiencies in the UK’s military capabilities which have been laid bare by the war in Ukraine in his letter to No 10 and subsequent conversations.They include shortfalls of deep-strike weapons, artillery stocks and in the UK’s anti-air and anti-drone capabilities, too few pilots to fly new F35 strike jets and too few crew for ships and submarines.Asked in May if he thought more spending on defence was justified as the cost-of-living crisis hit, Mr Wallace said an extra £24bn announced for the MoD in 2020 had been “very important” to “make sure that we modernise the Army”.The defence secretary added: “I mean, the Army’s land fleet is woefully behind its peers”.Mr Wallace also wrote to chancellor Rishi Sunak in March warning that Britain risked missing the Nato commitment to spend 2 per cent of national income on security by 2025.The letter highlighted the cost of arming Ukraine and rising inflation as the primary reasons Britain was facing a real-terms cut in defence spending.The former Commander Joint Forces Command General Sir Richard Barrons said that he supported Mr Wallace’s latest demands. “I back him 100%, as will all the service chiefs and every serving officer … we have to raise our game,” he told TalkTV.Meanwhile, the new head of the Army, General Sir Patrick Sanders, will use a speech on Tuesday that Britain must be prepared to “fight and win” to prevent the spread of war in Europe.The Chief of the General Staff will tell the RUSI conference that he had never seen such a clear threat to peace and democracy as the “brutal aggression” of Russian president Vladimir Putin.Sir Patrick will warn that British forces must “act rapidly” to boost its preparedness to ensure it is not drawn into a full-scale conflict. It comes after he wrote to all the troops under his command telling them they must prepare “to fight in Europe once again”. Mr Johnson and other G7 leaders condemned the “appalling” Russian missile attack on a shopping centre in Ukraine feared to have left scores of civilians dead or wounded.Two Russian missiles struck the shopping complex in the city of Kremenchuk, southeast of Kyiv, on Monday killing at least 18 people and wounding dozens, senior Ukrainian officials said.President Volodymyr Zelensky told G7 leaders on Monday that he wants the war with Vladimir Putin’s forces over by the end of 2022, telling allies not to let the conflict “drag on” through the winter.But in a sign that he was not willing to accept a peace deal that gave up swathes of Ukraine, the president said he would “only negotiate from a position of strength” as he urged allies to provide more military support. More

Theresa May has called Boris Johnson’s patriotism into question as she declared she will not support his bid to override the Northern Ireland protocol which he agreed with the EU as part of his Brexit withdrawal deal in 2019.In a scathing intervention in the House of Commons, the former prime minister said that legislation put forward unilaterally by the government would breach international law, and would lose the UK the respect of countries elsewhere in the world.And she told MPs she did not believe Mr Johnson’s controversial plan would solve the problems created by his decision to draw a customs border down the Irish Sea with his Brexit deal – something which she previously said “no UK prime minister could ever agree to”.Speaking to MPs, Ms May said “as a patriot” she could not back a course of action which would diminish the UK’s standing in the world – and then accused the PM’s plan of doing exactly that.And she questioned whether the EU would in any case take his threats seriously after he narrowly survived a confidence vote among his own MPs, saying that European leaders will now be asking themselves, “Is it really worth negotiating with these people in government, because will they actually be there for any period of time?”Her comments mark the highest-profile assault from within his own party on Mr Johnson’s plan, which would effectively tear up his Brexit agreement with Brussels and risk a trade war with the EU.MPs voted 295 to 221, majority 74, to give the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill a second reading on Monday evening, clearing the way for it to undergo detailed scrutiny in the coming weeks.Speaking in the Commons ahead of the vote, Ms May told MPs: “The UK’s standing in the world – our ability to convene and encourage others in the defence of our shared values – depends on the respect others have for us as a country, a country that keeps its word and displays those shared values in its actions.“As a patriot, I would not want to do anything that would diminish this country in the eyes of the world.“I have to say to the government, this bill is not in my view legal in international law, it will not achieve its aims, and it will diminish the standing of the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world, and I cannot support it.”The Northern Ireland Protocol Bill has sparked outrage in Brussels and Dublin by threatening to set aside key features of the agreement negotiated and signed by Mr Johnson in 2019 and then presented to voters as an “oven-ready deal” in that year’s general election.It would lift customs checks on goods from mainland Britain arriving for sale in Northern Ireland, end the harmonisation of the province’s VAT with the rest of the EU single market of which it still forms part, and remove the European Court of Justice from any role in arbritrating on disputes over the border.But foreign secretary Liz Truss insisted that the government’s plans were legal, citing the internationally recognised “doctrine of necessity” which allows countries to bypass elements in treaties in cases of emergency where no other option is available to them.Citing unionist parties’ concerns that the protocol created a “democratic deficit” in Northern Ireland, she told the Commons that the government wanted a negotiated solution to resolve trade difficulties across the Irish Sea, but that the EU’s refusal to change its negotiating mandate left unilateral legislative action as its only option.But Ms May told her that the government’s ability to negotiate was undermined by its unwillingness to abide by recently signed deals.“I suspect they are saying to themselves, why should they negotiate in detail with a government that shows itself willing to sign an agreement, claim it as a victory and then try to tear part of it up in less than three years,” she said.The “peril” which the bill is intended to overcome “is a direct result of the border down the Irish Sea which was an integral and inherent part of the protocol which the government signed in the withdrawal agreement”, said Ms May, whose backstop arrangement – much derided by Mr Johnson – was designed to avoid exactly this problem.The bill also came under attack from Conservative former Northern Ireland secretary Julian Smith, who described it as “a kind of displacement activity from the core task of doing whatever we can to negotiate a better protocol deal for Northern Ireland”.Former cabinet minister Andrew Mitchell told Ms Truss that it “brazenly breaks a solemn international treaty, it trashes our international reputation, it threatens a trade war at a time when our economy is flat and it puts us at odds with our most important ally”.And the Tory chair of the Commons Northern Ireland committee, Simon Hoare, denounced it as “a failure of statecraft [that] puts at risk the reputation of the United Kingdom”.“The arguments supporting it are flimsy at best, and irrational at worst,” said Mr Hoare. “It is a bill that risks economically harmful retaliation, a bill that runs the risk of shredding our reputation as a guardian of international law and the rules-based system.”DUP leader Sir Jeffrey Donaldson told the Commons that the protocol has had a “devastating” impact on Northern Ireland over the past 18 months.“How can anyone in this house defend a situation where part of this United Kingdom is treated in a way where its elected representatives have no say in many of the laws that regulate our trade with the rest of the United Kingdom?” he asked.But speaking outside the chamber, Sir Jeffrey declined to say whether its passage would prompt the largest unionist party to end its boycott of power-sharing institutions, telling reporters only that they would “consider what steps we can take” once the bill passes the House of Commons. More

Nicola Sturgeon has backed establishing buffer zones around abortion clinics in Scotland so women can access services “free of harassment and intimidation”.The first minister was speaking at the abortion summit in Edinburgh which aims to ensure that women can access abortion services.Ms Sturgeon said the summit had come at a particularly important time, given the US Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the landmark Roe v Wade ruling, thereby ending Americans’ constitutional right to an abortion, which she described as “one of the darkest days for women’s rights in my lifetime”.Ms Sturgeon said that the proper focus for anyone protesting against abortion should be Parliament and lawmakers, not hospitals or sexual health clinics.She said: “Gatherings of this kind create additional stress for anyone using these facilities, for any purpose, and for those who work in them. But for women accessing abortion services the upset, distress and fear that they cause can be profound.“At what is already a very stressful time, women are being forced to see or make their way past these groups on the way in. And once they’re inside, on top of everything else, there’s the knowledge that they may have to see them again on the way out.“In my view, the current situation is unacceptable, and it’s one which we must address as a matter of urgency. I am determined that we do so.“There are issues that we need to solve to establish buffer zones through legislation but if we work together in a spirit of solidarity, I am confident we can find a way.”The summit brings together representatives from local government, third sector organisations, Police Scotland, the NHS and campaigners.Scottish Green MSP Gillian Mackay last month launched a consultation on her proposed member’s bill, which would see 150m buffer zones put in place around healthcare facilities that provide abortion services.The Scottish government said it is committed to working constructively with Ms Mackay on her bill, which she hopes can identify short-term solutions to combat unacceptable behaviour while it is passing through the parliamentary process.In March, New Zealand passed a law creating safe areas around abortion facilities. The bill allows for safe areas of no more than 150m around clinics.It also made it illegal for people to obstruct, film in an intimidating manner, advise or dissuade someone from accessing abortion services, or protest about matters relating to abortion services within these areas. More