| 24th July |
Licensed to Kill... |
|
| |
As always, no charges for police to answer
Permalink full story: Policing UK Demonstrations...Heavy handing policing of demonstrations |
Based on
article
from bbc.co.uk
See also No
charge in Ian Tomlinson death
from indexoncensorship.org
|
A
police officer who was filmed pushing a man to the ground during the G20
protests will not face charges over his death.
Ian Tomlinson died after being caught up in the clashes on 1 April
2009 in the City of London.
Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer claimed there was no
prospect of conviction because experts could not agree on how
Tomlinson died.
Tomlinson's son Paul King described the decision as outrageous.
The officer who was filmed pushing Tomlinson has been named as Pc
Simon Harwood from the Metropolitan Police territorial support group.
Tomlinson, a newspaper seller who was not involved in the protests,
was walking home when he was caught up in the demonstration.
The video footage showed him being apparently struck by a baton and
then pushed to the ground. He was seen moving away after the incident
but was found collapsed 100 metres away in Cornhill.
|
| 20th July |
Picnics Hampered... |
|
| |
What’s criminal about a drink in the park?
Permalink full story: Drinking Restrictions...Drinking becomes the target of killjoy politicians |
Based on
article
from spiked-online.com
|
In
response to UK deputy minister Nick Clegg's call for suggestions for
laws and regulations that should be scrapped, spiked writers will put
forward their suggestions for which laws should be consigned to the
shredding machine of history. Here, Nicholas Thorne puts the case for
pouring booze bans down the drain.
The gay capital of Britain, home of the country's most radical
university, the constituency of the first Green MP, the starting point
of a nudist bike ride and served by buses running on cooking oil. I'm
talking, of course, of Brighton, which has long been known as an
alternative, hippy haven, where activities frowned upon or just
considered unusual in the rest of the country are an accepted part of
everyday life.
So it comes as a surprise to find that Brighton is also at the
epicentre of the strictest, most heavily enforced public drinking bans
in the UK – this despite the fact that Brighton doesn't have a
particularly high crime rate. Still, it is in Brighton - a place where
during the warm summer months, thousands head to the parks and beaches
to enjoy, among other things, a cool glass of beer or a bottle of wine -
that the council and police have cracked down hardest on public
drinking.
...Read the full
article
|
| 17th July |
May We Take Photos?... |
|
| |
Theresa May utters fine words about an end to the police harassment of photographers
Permalink full story: Policing of Photographers...Snapshot of a British police state |
Based on
article
from bigbrotherwatch.org.uk
See also
Hansard from
publications.parliament.uk
See Police
chief: Yes, my plods sometimes forget photo laws
from theregister.co.uk
by Jane Fae Ozimek
|
Theresa
May's made a speech in the House of Commons in a discussion of the absurd
treatment of photographers under current anti-terror laws. Prompted by the
excellent Tracey Crouch, May gave the following assurance:
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and
Aylesford) (Con): Under the previous Government, a
photographer from Medway was arrested in Chatham high street under
section 44 stop-and-search powers, and he and fellow photographers from
Medway will welcome today's announcement from the Home Secretary. Will
she assure the House that any future revision of anti-terror legislation
will strike the right balance between protecting the public and
safeguarding the rights of individuals?
Theresa May: I am
happy to give that assurance to my hon. Friend. She may have noticed
that in my statement I specifically said that we would look at the issue
of photographers and stop-and-search powers. It is one issue that has
been brought home forcibly to me. I have had constituency cases of
people who have been stopped under those powers and been concerned about
it, and I have received a number of representations from Members of this
House, and indeed of another place, about those problems.
|
| 14th July |
Do you Mind if I Speak Candidly?... |
|
| |
Scots will have to ask permission before speaking sexily
Permalink |
Based on
article
from thethirdestate.net
by Reuben
|
In October Scotland's new Sexual Offences Act will come into force.
Unlike the 2003 Act that was written for England and Wales, the Scottish
act contains a clause outlawing indecent communication. It will
soon be illegal to communicate with someone sexually – either in writing
or in speech – without obtaining their consent, or without the
reasonable belief that they do consent to it. Quite simply they have
taken the standard traditionally applied to rape – to the actual
penetration of another person's body – and applied it to what people
say.
Thankfully it is fairly normal to ensure that somebody consents to
sexual intercourse. This is because putting your penis inside another
person can have a serious and lasting affect on them, not least if they
do not want it there. More generally people expect to enjoy sovereignty
over their bodies and their physical experiences. By contrast we do not
have – nor would any sane person require – a general right to be
protected from hearing things we don't want to hear. And that is why, in
our culture, it is not normal to ask people for permission to say
something sexual during the course of a facebook chat or a conversation
in a bar. Do you mind if I deploy an innuendo just wouldn't sound
right. And quite frankly it shouldn't.
...Read the full
article
|
| 10th July |
Trains Packed with Officious Ticket Inspectors... |
|
| |
South West Trains gets nasty about photography
Permalink full story: Policing of Photographers...Snapshot of a British police state |
Surely it can't help security, against bombs and the likes, to make
these petty officials into enemies of the people who are best avoided.
At the moment one would have to have a pretty compelling reason before
reporting anything suspicious to the authorities, lest it's yourself
that gets into trouble.
Based on
article from
dailymail.co.uk
|
A
UK rail passenger who took photographs of an overcrowded train carriage was
threatened with arrest under anti-terror laws.
Nigel Roberts was so appalled by the cramped conditions commuters
have to endure he warned a ticket inspector that dangerous overcrowding
could cost lives.
But when he showed his mobile phone photos of luggage-crammed aisles
and exits he was told it is illegal to take such pictures and
threatened with prosecution.
The inspector then demanded Roberts' personal details as Roberts
explained: When I told him I had taken some photos
he said it was illegal under the Terrorism Act and that I could be
arrested and demanded my name and address.
He said there were police officers on the train
and I may be arrested for taking the photographs. He said he had powers
given to him under the Railways Act to ask me for the information and it
was an even more serious offence for me not to comply.
I felt as if I was in a police state. He
explained that for some reason it was for my own protection but my
argument was that every passenger on the train would have needed
protection in the event of an emergency.
He told me he would make a note of our
conversation so that they could be used in the event of a prosecution.
He was pleasant enough but it was a frightening and chilling experience
for me.
A spokeswoman for South West Trains - owned by the Stagecoach group -
said: Staff are aware they need to be particularly
attentive to unusual photos being taken or suspicious behaviour and to
challenge this if necessary. However this was clearly not an issue in
this case and we will ensure our staff are re-briefed to avoid any
misunderstanding in the future. We are sorry for any upset and anxiety
caused to Mr Roberts.
|
| 9th July |
Obstacle Course... |
|
| |
Unvetted parents banned from their children's school sports day
Permalink full story: Vetting Workers...UK vets all adults to work with kids |
Based on
article
from dailymail.co.uk
|
A
school turned a father away from his son's first sports day after banning
parents who have not been checked by police from mixing with pupils.
The taxi driver had gone to watch his son, a year seven pupil,
compete in sprints and egg-and-spoon races.
But teachers refused to let him spectate because they did not believe
he had undergone checks by the Criminal Records Bureau.
De Lisle Catholic Science school in Loughborough has a policy which
says that any parent who has not passed the checks is banned from
attending events in which pupils take part.
The father told a Talksport radio programme: I couldn't believe it
when they told me I wasn't allowed in because I didn't have the relevant
CRB checks. I'd called the school that morning to ask if it would be OK
if I came along and they said it would be no problem. But when I got to
the school the assistant head teacher said that as I hadn't had a CRB
check then I couldn't watch.
I'm a taxi driver and I have to have regular CRB checks as part of
my licence. I've never had any trouble.
What is the world coming to when parents can't watch their own
kids take part in what is a big day in their young lives? I'm all for
protecting kids, but surely there has to be a place for common sense.
The school said in a statement: We fully appreciate that one
parent was upset by our policy regarding the attendance of parents at
sports days.
A spokesman for Leicestershire County Council told Talksport:
Parents should have access to school activities. We certainly do not
issue any guidance to say parents should have a CRB check to attend
school sports days. The day-to-day running of the school is a matter for
the school and its governors, but we are contacting the school to
discuss their policy with them.
|
| 1st July |
More Shameful Policing... |
|
| |
Police recorded making up the law about public photography
Permalink full story: Policing of Photographers...Snapshot of a British police state |
Based on
article from
bjp-online.com
See
video from
youtube.com
See also
Welcome to Doggie Policing
from jackofkent.blogspot.com
|
On
Saturday 26 June, photojournalist Jules Mattsson, who is a minor and was
documenting the Armed Forces Day parade in Romford, was questioned and detained
by a police officer after taking a photo of young cadets.
According to Mattsson, who spoke to BJP this morning, after taking
the photo he was told by a police officer that he would need parental
permission for his image. The photographer answered that, legally, he
didn't. While he tried to leave the scene to continue shooting, a second
officer allegedly grabbed his arm to question him further.
According an audio recording of the incident, the police officer
argued, at first, that it was illegal to take photographs of children,
before adding that it was illegal to take images of army members, and,
finally, of police officers. When asked under what legislation powers he
was being stopped, the police officer said that Mattsson presented a
threat under anti-terrorism laws. The photographer was pushed down on
stairs and detained until the end of the parade and after the
intervention of three other photographers.
A spokeswoman, before commenting on the case, questioned, in a
conversation with BJP, why Mattsson used an audio recording device, in
this case a phone, to record the incident. Asked about it Mattsson says
that he started recording only after he was aggressively taken aside
by an officer. He also says that it isn't the first time he's been
stopped and wanted a record of the incident to prove he wasn't breaching
any laws.
|
| 30th June |
Theresa May: Human Rights Abuser!... |
|
| |
A right to married life is only available to some Brits if they emigrate
Permalink |
|
|
|
|
NOT WANTED
Theresa May
Human Rights Abuser |
The Home Secretary Theresa May has recently announced that foreign
spouses of British people will only be able to settle in Britain once
they have learnt to speak English.
A twist, raised by how this restriction affects people seeking
asylum, has resulted in a fascinating admission:
Human rights no longer apply in Britain as long as people have the
ability to emigrate to somewhere else.
The issue arises over the launch of Britain's first-ever cap on
immigration and a requirement for all immigrants to pass an English
speaking test.
Based on
article
from dailymail.co.uk
Former Immigration Minister Phil Woolas said:
This ruling means that a British man who marries, say, a Brazilian
girl who can't speak English will not be able to bring her into this
country.
The Tories gave the impression that the
English speaking test would apply to all immigrants.
However, a little-noticed Commons written reply
last week said: The new language requirement will not apply to
dependants of refugees and people granted humanitarian protection in the
UK.
The Government granted the exemption after
being warned that forcing refugees' dependants to learn English breaks
Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which gives
everyone the right to a family life.
Lawyers say a refugee could argue that as they
cannot return to their country, they can gain their right to family
life only by having it allowed in the UK – whether or not they speak
English. Britons whose foreign spouses cannot speak English could get
their human right by emigrating.
So how many other human rights can be denied on the grounds that you
can always emigrate?
|
| 29th June |
Police Officer Snapped... |
|
| |
Police apologise over human rights abuse of photographer
Permalink full story: Policing of Photographers...Snapshot of a British police state |
Based on
article
from guardian.co.uk
|
Once
again, the Metropolitan police have been forced to apologise and accept
liability for the actions of one of their officers. It's an embarrassing
climbdown for the force, which could have very positive implications for
press freedom in the UK, especially for journalists whose work is to
cover political protest and dissent.
In December 2008, political journalists Marc Vallée and Jason
Parkinson were deliberately obstructed from their work documenting
protests outside the Greek embassy in London, which had erupted
following the shooting of a teenage demonstrator by police in Athens. An
armed officer from the Met's diplomatic protection group violently
prevented the pair from filming or using still cameras to record events
taking place around them, and a short while later two territorial
support group officers forcibly removed Vallée and Parkinson from the
scene altogether.
The Met agreed that the actions of that armed officer had been
unlawful and in clear breach of article 10 of the European convention on
human rights, which deals with freedom of expression. As the article
states, all citizens have the freedom to hold opinions and to receive
and impart information and ideas without interference by public
authority. In an apology of unprecedented frankness, the police not
only admitted liability, but went on to comment too on the wider
implications of their actions. They stated:
The MPS [Metropolitan police service]
confirms its recognition that freedom of the press is a cornerstone
of democracy and that journalists have a right to report freely. The
MPS recognise that on 8 December 2008 they failed to respect press
freedom in respect of Mr Vallée and Mr Parkinson.
|
| 28th June |
Police Red Carded... |
|
| |
Manchester police compensate Stoke fans for abuse of powers in stopping them attending a match
Permalink full story: Football Policing in UK...Police vandalise the concept of justice |
Based on
article
from thetimes.co.uk
|
Police have paid £184,850 compensation to about 80 Stoke City fans for
holding them for more than two hours in a pub in Irlam, Salford, to stop
them attending a game against Manchester United at Old Trafford in November
2008.
Greater Manchester Police admitted erroneously using Section 27 of
the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006, which was designed to stop violence
related to alcohol.
The fans argued that it was not meant to be used against football
supporters. Their action was backed by Liberty, the civil rights group, and
the Football Supporters' Federation.
Malcolm Clarke, the federation chairman, said: The vast majority in
the pub were decent supporters who had no intent to cause trouble. They were
treated in a highly degrading way. These supporters were falsely imprisoned
and the Section 27 powers were grossly executed. The legislation is for
breaking up alcohol-related trouble in the pub on a Saturday night.
Sian Williams, Greater Manchester Police's deputy director of legal
services, said: We have paid damages to complainants after finding that
we had erroneously used powers under section 27 Violent Crime Reduction Act
in November 2008. At the time the use of the powers was new and we have
since taken steps to improve our understanding of the legislation to try to
prevent this from happening again.
|
|
|

The UK Government is consulting with the public about which laws should
be ejected in a great repeals bill
So today we are taking an unprecedented step.
Based on the belief that it is people, not policymakers, who know best,
we are asking the people of Britain to tell us how you want to see your
freedom restored.
We are calling for your ideas on how to protect
our hard won liberties and repeal unnecessary laws. And we want to know
how best to scale back excessive regulation that denies businesses the
space to innovate. We're hoping for virtual mailbags full of
suggestions. Every single one will be read, with the best put to
Parliament.
So, finally, after years in the wilderness,
freedom is back in fashion. This is our chance to redraw the boundaries
between citizen and state. It's your chance to have your say.
Let me know of any suggestions deserving of support
strip-local-authorities-of-powers-to-authorise-direct-covert-surveillance
repeal-or-amend-ripa-regulation-of-investigatory-powers-act
prohibit-councils-from-applying-blanket-alchol-bans
|
|