Write the words of this act the way you think they should read. Solon shows your change as a redline against the published text and pins it to that exact text, so it can never be applied to wording you did not see.
Change 1
As published
170 Exemption of police from liability for damages
(1) Neither a constable nor a trading standards officer is liable for relevant damages in respect of any act or omission of his in the performance or purported performance ... of his functions in relation to a closure notice.
(2) Neither a chief officer of police nor a local weights and measures authority is liable for relevant damages in respect of any act or omission of a person in the performance or purported performance, while under the direction or control of such a chief officer or local weights and measures authority—
(a) of a function of that person in relation to a closure order, or any extension of it; or
(b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(3) But neither subsection (1) nor (2) applies—
(a) if the act or omission is shown to have been in bad faith, or
(b) so as to prevent an award of damages in respect of an act or omission on the grounds that the act or omission was unlawful as a result of section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42) (incompatibility of act or omission with Convention rights).
(4) This section does not affect any other exemption from liability for damages (whether at common law or otherwise).
(4A) In this section references to a constable include references to a person exercising the powers of a constable by virtue of a designation under section 38 of the Police Reform Act 2002 (community support officers etc.); and, in relation to such a person exercising such powers by virtue of such a designation by the Commissioner of Police of the City of London, the first reference in subsection (2) to a chief officer of police has effect as a reference to the Common Council of the City of London.
(5) In this section, “relevant damages” means damages awarded in proceedings for judicial review, the tort of negligence or misfeasance in public office.
Your change, as a redline
170 Exemption of police from liability for damages
(1) Neither a constable nor a trading standards officer is liable for relevant damages in respect of any act or omission of his in the performance or purported performance ... of his functions in relation to a closure notice.
(2) Neither a chief officer of police nor a local weights and measures authority is liable for relevant damages in respect of any act or omission of a person in the performance or purported performance, while under the direction or control of such a chief officer or local weights and measures authority—
(a) of a function of that person in relation to a closure order, or any extension of it; or
(b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(3) But neither subsection (1) nor (2) applies—
(a) if the act or omission is shown to have been in bad faith, or
(b) so as to prevent an award of damages in respect of an act or omission on the grounds that the act or omission was unlawful as a result of section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42) (incompatibility of act or omission with Convention rights).
(4) This section does not affect any other exemption from liability for damages (whether at common law or otherwise).
(4A) In this section references to a constable include references to a person exercising the powers of a constable by virtue of a designation under section 38 of the Police Reform Act 2002 (community support officers etc.); and, in relation to such a person exercising such powers by virtue of such a designation by the Commissioner of Police of the City of London, the first reference in subsection (2) to a chief officer of police has effect as a reference to the Common Council of the City of London.
(5) In this section, “relevant damages” means damages awarded in proceedings for judicial review, the tort of negligence or misfeasance in public office.
One line that says what changes, such as "Halve the dog tax".
Who it helps, what it costs, what it fixes. It is what persuades people to support it.
A proposal here is not law. Support on Solon is evidence that people want the change; the official route says what it takes to make it law.
Sign in to file your proposal. What you have written stays on this page.
Ask what your change would do, who would gain and who would bear a cost, and where something like it is already law. The assistant reads your draft as it stands, cites the law and the studies it finds, and takes no side. What you file stays yours.