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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.