Bollox Britain

Police must urgently review their tactic of kettling demonstrators, MPs investigating the G20 protests said.

In a damning report, the Commons home affairs committee says holding protesters in a small area for hours is unacceptable.

The first major review of the operation also said officers who work with their identity numbers hidden or missing should face the strongest possible disciplinary measures.

It concluded: Above all, the police must constantly remember that those who protest on Britain's streets are not criminals but citizens motivated by moral principles, exercising their democratic rights. The police's doctrine must remain focused on allowing this protest to happen peacefully. Any action which may be viewed by the general public as the police criminalising protest on the streets must be avoided at all costs.

Police have been heavily criticised for their conduct at demonstrations by 35,000 people during the visit of world leaders to London in early April.

Newspaper seller Ian Tomlinson died in clashes in Central London, after being pushed to the ground. The officer who allegedly shoved him has been suspended and could face criminal charges. Amateur videos appear to show protesters being pushed or hit by officers. More than 200 complaints of alleged police brutality at the protests have been made.

The report condemns the tactic of kettling, saying it is unacceptable to impose a blanket ban on movement. Frontline officers must be given discretion to allow peaceful protesters to escape highly-charged events, MPs said.

Committee chairman Keith Vaz said: It is clear that concerns about the policing of the G20 protests have damaged the public's confidence in the police, and that is a great shame. The ability of the public and the media to monitor every single action of the police through CCTV, mobile phones and video equipment should mean they take even greater care to ensure that all their actions are justifiable.

Update: Police floated impostor theory over Ian Tomlinson's death

2nd July 2009. See article from guardian.co.uk

A senior police officer who 'investigated' the death of Ian Tomlinson told his family that the officer who struck him at the G20 demonstrations could have been a member of the public dressed in police uniform.

The City of London police investigator made the comment at an emergency meeting with Tomlinson's family and the Independent Police Complaints Commission on 8 April, hours after the Guardian released footage showing the attack on the 47-year-old newspaper vendor.

A report on issues surrounding Tomlinson's death by Inquest, the group that assists the families of people who die in police custody, said yesterday that the suggestion he might have been attacked by an impostor gave the impression that the investigation was biased.

The City of London police completely failed to persuade the Tomlinson family of its impartiality, not least when they were told by an investigating officer that he was not ruling out the possibility that the alleged assailant may be a member of the public dressed in police uniform, it said. A source present at the 8 April meeting said the senior investigator's comment was made after he was pressed on how the identity of the officer could be established from the video.

The investigator agreed that the man who struck Tomlinson was likely to have been a police officer, but could not rule out the possibility that he was a member of the public.

The family believed this theory was fantastical. The video of the attack clearly showed that the officer who struck Tomlinson, who has since been suspended from duty and questioned under caution for manslaughter, was surrounded by more than a dozen police officers. The source said that the investigator claimed one possibility was that a member of the public had stolen a Metropolitan police uniform and equipment from the back of a police van before initiating the attack.

Thousands of people are being stopped and searched by the police under counter-terrorism powers simply to provide a racial balance in official statistics, the government's official anti-terror law watchdog has revealed.

Alex Carlile is the Government's appointed Independent Reviewer of terrorism legislation. He said in his annual report that he has got ample anecdotal evidence , adding that it was totally wrong and an invasion of civil liberties to stop and search people simply to racially balance the statistics: I can well understand the concerns of the police that they should be free from allegations of prejudice. But it is not a good use of precious resources if they waste them on self-evidently unmerited searches."

The official reviewer of counter-terrorist legislation said there was little or no evidence that the use of section 44 stop-and-search powers by the police can prevent an act of terrorism: Whilst arrests for other crime have followed searches under the section, none of the many thousands of searches has ever resulted in a conviction for a terrorism offence. Its utility has been questioned publicly and privately by senior Metropolitan police staff with wide experience of terrorism policing. He added that such searches were stopping between 8,000-10,000 people a month.

None of the many thousands of searches had ever led to a conviction for a terrorist offence, he said. He noted, too, that the damage done to community relations was undoubtedly considerable.

The Met has announced a review of how it uses section 44 powers. And the home secretary, Alan Johnson, is to issue fresh guidance to the police, warning that counter-terrorism must not be used to stop people taking photographs of on-duty officers.

Carlile uses his annual report to endorse complaints from professional and amateur photographers that counter-terror powers are being used to threaten prosecution if pictures are taken of officers on duty.

He said the power was only intended to cover images likely to be of use to a terrorist: It is inexcusable for police officers ever to use this provision to interfere with the rights of individuals to take photographs. The police had to come to terms with the increased scrutiny of their activities by the public, afforded by equipment such as video-enabled mobile phones. Police officers who use force or threaten force in this context run the real risk of being prosecuted themselves for one or more of several possible criminal and disciplinary offences, he warned.

LBC's Nottingham newsroom has received video footage which appears to show a police officer punching a suspect in Nottingham city centre three times.

It shows officers attempting to arrest a man on Upper Parliament Street on Sunday night using a taser gun as he lays on the ground. An officer is also seen pushing a bystander.

A Nottinghamshire Police statement read: Officers were called for assistance by door staff to help deal with an aggressive customer. Police attended and an officer was assaulted, requiring hospital treatment.

While no complaint has been made against any of the officers involved in the incident and no one has been suspended, the footage has been voluntarily referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).

Police are keen to speak to anyone who witnessed the incident or events leading up to the arrest, or anyone who has footage of events leading up to and during the incident.

"A 40-year-old man been arrested on suspicion of grievous bodily harm and has been released on police bail.

Assistant Chief Constable Peter Davies, said: We understand that some members of the public may be concerned about this. The public's trust and confidence is very important for us, which is why we have referred this matter for an objective investigation to the IPCC.

We are proactively looking at other CCTV in the area to ensure we have a clear picture of events leading up to the arrest and I would ask anyone in possession of such evidence, including the person who took the footage that has been published, to come forward as witnesses.

Britain's highest court, the House of Lords, ruled against the government on in a sensitive case involving the use of secret evidence to justify imposing home curfews on terrorism suspects.

Nine law lords unanimously upheld an appeal by three men who argued it was against their human rights to be subject to control orders, a form of house arrest, based on secret evidence they are not privy to and cannot challenge in court.

A trial procedure can never be considered fair if a party to it is kept in ignorance of the case against him, wrote Nicholas Phillips, Britain's most senior law lord, in issuing the lengthy judgment: If the wider public are to have confidence in the justice system, they need to be able to see that justice is done rather than being asked to take it on trust.

The decision does not overturn the use of control orders, introduced by the government in 2005 and which allow terrorism suspects to be kept under curfew for up to 16 hours a day, but it does call into question a central element of the policy.

Human rights and justice organizations say they violate fundamental rights and freedoms, running the risk of turning Britain into a police state, with suspects placed under tight surveillance without knowing what they have done wrong.

Because the orders rely on secret information collected by the security services that cannot be made public, they also presume guilt without evidence being presented and without it being able to be challenged in court.

The government said it was extremely disappointed by the ruling and would consider it carefully.

Rights campaigners said the law lords' decision could mark a turning point in the use of secret evidence in control orders. One thing is clear from this judgment, it's going to be much more difficult for the government to sustain the use of control orders when they have to disclose the evidence to the suspects, said Eric Metcalfe of the campaign group Justice.

An English teacher has been sacked after writing a racy novel which detailed her teenage pupils' sexual fantasies.

Leonora Rustamova was suspended from her post in January prompting mass demonstrations by pupils and a campaign by parents to have her reinstated.

But after a disciplinary hearing, governors have now decided to sack the teacher.

The story - Stop! Don't Read This! - originally appeared on a self-publishing website.

Although it is claimed to be all invention, it features five genuine teenage pupils at Calder High School in Mytholmroyd, West Yorkshire. It contains swearwords, has children skipping lessons, refers to a pupil flirting with a teacher and compares two youngsters to gorgeous Mr Gay UK finalists.

Stop! Don't Read This! was withdrawn from the website when the teacher, known affectionately as Miss Rusty, was sent home from the school in mid-January along with her supportive colleague Mr Cann.

Update: Exonerated by the General Teaching Council

19th February 2012. See  article from  dailymail.co.uk

Miss Rusty, who had been at the school for 11 years, is now celebrating after being cleared by of any misdemeanours by the General Teaching Council (GTC) - which she hopes will help her win an industrial tribunal.

She said: It has been an awful time. I got the letter from the General Teaching Council on Saturday and it took 15 minutes to summon up the courage to open the envelope.

The council said it had re-examined all the facts in the case and decided there was no case to answer, so they are taking it no further.

Drinkers in Oldham pubs are to be told to stand in a queue and banned from ordering more than two drinks at a time at the bar. Rope barriers similar to those used in shops and post offices will be installed to keep customers in line.

The nutter plan has been proposed following supposed concern over disorder and violence in town centre bars.

The two-drink limit is intended to so called curb binge-drinking and stop customers ordering large amounts of alcohol.

But critics say the 'nanny state' restrictions will end the convivial British tradition of drinkers buying rounds for their friends. Mark Hastings, of the British Beer And Pub Association, said: We have no problem with tackling problem drinking but this is not the way to go about it. These measures are costly, unnecessary and totally disproportionate at a time when around 40 pubs are closing every week. People aren't going to want to drink if they have to queue up as if they're in the post office.'

Under plans drawn up by Not So Liberal Democrat-controlled Oldham Council, all 22 pubs in the town centre will have to comply with the new rules. The 2003 Licensing Act allows police and trading standards officers to apply for variations in a pub licence if there is concern about drink-related violence and disorder.

Licensing committee member Derek Heffernan said: It would be the end of buying a round but we have to do something to calm things down. There have been fights and stabbings and it's not right that people going out for the evening have to worry about being attacked.

Drinkers in Oldham yesterday were similarly unimpressed. Jeff Smith, a regular at the Hare And Hounds, said: It would cause even more trouble than there is already because there will always be someone trying to jump the queue.

An Oldham council spokesprat said: The measures are under discussion and a decision will be made within weeks.

Scotland Yard was accused of misleading its own watchdog after an official report on the policing of the G20 London protests was said to contain false claims and gross inaccuracies.

The document, submitted to a meeting of the Metropolitan Police Authority yesterday, set out the police version of events during the demonstrations last month, and included claims protesters and independent observers said were misleading.

The Liberal Democrat justice spokesman, David Howarth, said the report was full of serious inaccuracies and questioned its claim that protesters were free to leave police cordons on the streets.

The report stated that whenever possible, people were allowed to leave the cordon around the Bank of England and the Climate Camp in Bishopsgate. But accounts from hundreds of people caught inside the pens for hours indicated police refused people permission to leave.

Other alleged inaccuracies in the Met's report included the claim that the Bishopsgate Climate Camp had blocked a four-lane highway, and that police had supplied water to penned people.

The report also said Climate Camp protesters had refused to divulge their plans at a meeting with senior officers on the eve of the rally. Howarth, who mediated the meeting, said protesters had been constructive in attempts to liaise with the police. It is time for the spinning to stop and for senior officers to ... take responsibility, Howarth said.

The report also said the Met was cooperating with the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which is investigating a complaint relating to an alleged assault of a 22-year-old woman on 1 April. The IPCC has received 256 complaints relating to G20 demonstrations.

House of Commons
26th April 2009

Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab): Can I seek an assurance from my right hon. Friend that the circumstances that led to the photographs being taken in Downing street do not lead to further pressures on the rights of photographers, both professionals and amateurs, to take photographs in this country, especially as this event coincided with an incident in the past few days where somebody was allegedly challenged by a police officer for taking photographs of a bus garage? We need to learn lessons from the event and draw together the common-sense work being led by my hon. Friend the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing to come up with the right code of practice to ensure that photographers can do their jobs and amateurs can take photographs with freedom.

Jacqui Smith: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend, who has met the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing to discuss his concerns. I see no reason why the unfortunate events on 8 April should limit the ability of photographers to take photographs, and neither do I believe, as he knows, that some of the limits result from recent legislative changes that we have made, as has been suggested. There is more work that we can do to ensure that photographers are clear that their right to take photographs is protected in all cases where it is not causing a specific risk. That is certainly a right that my hon. Friend and I would uphold.

So presumably all the police officers so frequently preventing photographers from taking pictures are corrupting the law for their own convenience

No tourist trip to London is complete without a set of holiday snaps. But a father and son were forced to return home to Austria without their pictures after policemen deleted them from their camera - supposedly in a bid to prevent terrorism.

Klaus Matzka and his son, Loris from Vienna, were taking photographs of a double-decker bus in Walthamstow, north-east London, when two policemen approached them.

Austrian tourists Klaus and Loris Matzka were ordered to delete pictures of a London double decker in Walthamstow

The tourists were told it is strictly forbidden to take pictures of anything to do with public transport and their names, passport numbers and hotel address in London were noted.

Matzka was then forced to delete any holiday snaps that featured anything to do with transport.

The Metropolitan Police said it was investigating the allegations and had no knowledge of any ban on photographing public transport in London. [yeah yeah]. A spokeswoman added: It is not the police's intention to prevent tourists from taking photographs and we are looking into the allegations made.

Jenny Jones, a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority and a Green party member of the London assembly, said the incident was 'another example of the police completely overreaching the anti-terrorism powers'. She said she would raise the issue with the Met chief, Sir Paul Stephenson, as part of the discussion into police methods at the G20 protests, adding: I have already written to him about the police taking away cameras and stopping people taking photographs.

Police have carried out what is thought to be the biggest pre-emptive raid on environmental campaigners in British history, arresting 114 people believed to be planning direct action at a coal-fired power station.

The arrests - for conspiracy to commit criminal damage and aggravated trespass - come amid growing concern among protesters about increased police surveillance and infiltration by informers.

Police said the raid on a school in Nottingham was made just after midnight yesterday, and was linked to a planned protest, thought to be at nearby Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station.

Last night campaigners said police were photographing and stopping people entering and leaving public meetings and the offices of the lobby group Greenpeace.

Caroline Lucas, leader of the Green party, said that with no charges more than 12 hours after the arrests : confidence in policing of protests like this has just about hit rock bottom. Peaceful protest is a civil liberty we need to be upheld, even more in the context of the lack of government action on climate change. We have tried all the usual channels.

Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said: In the light of the policing of the G20 protests, people up and down the country will want to be confident that there was evidence of a real conspiracy to commit criminal damage by those arrested and that this was not just an attempt by the police to disrupt perfectly legitimate protest.

Power station operators, E.ON said: We can confirm that Ratcliffe power station was the planned target of an organised protest during the early hours of this morning. While we understand that everyone has a right to protest peacefully and lawfully ... we will be assisting the police with their investigations into what could have been a very dangerous and irresponsible attempt to disrupt an operational power plant.

Offsite: The arrest of 114 power station protesters is extremely worrying

See article from guardian.co.uk by Henry Porter

The arrest of 114 people on suspicion of conspiracy to commit aggravated trespass at Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station, near Nottingham, is extremely worrying and may be regarded as further indication of a style of policing that has developed under this appalling government and is undermining the values and needs of a free society.

Let us be clear that the people arrested yesterday, who have all now been released on bail, have manifestly not committed any crime of trespass. Second, they possess inalienable rights to assembly and protest.

...Read full article

Offsite: Who are the police protecting?

See article from guardian.co.uk by David Howarth

Is police interference in the right to protest designed only to protect the political and economic status quo?

The arrest of more than one hundred climate protesters alleged to have been planning to disrupt the operation of the Ratcliffe coal-fired power station is, I am glad to see, raising questions about undue interference in the right to protest. Prior restraint of protest, especially in the form of preventive arrest, is difficult to justify. Adding restrictive conditions to the protesters' bail makes the prior restraint even worse.

Preventive arrests for inchoate offences stand completely outside the traditional understanding of how civil disobedience works, because they are aimed at stopping the protest itself, and at punishing the protestors without waiting to see whether they cause more than trivial harm. If catastrophic harm might come about from allowing a particular protest to happen, there might be a case for breaking the tacit understanding on that particular occasion. But anything beyond that, especially any attempt to defy the whole tradition of civil disobedience, risks destroying a very delicate mechanism that successfully balances freedom and order. It further risks producing a situation in which there is less of both, in which protest is more often suppressed, but in which it is far less civil when it occurs.

...Read full article

A teacher has been suspended after writing 'fictional' book in which her pupils feature.

Leonora Rustamova has been suspended from her post, along with a colleague, prompting mass demonstrations by pupils and a campaign by parents to have them reinstated.

The story, Stop! Don't Read This! appeared on a self-publishing website. Although it is claimed to be all invention, it features five genuine teenage pupils at Calder High School in Mytholmroyd, West Yorkshire.

It contains swearwords, has children skipping lessons, refers to a pupil flirting with a teacher and compares two youngsters to gorgeous Mr Gay UK finalists . The story names several teachers, including real headmaster Stephen Ball, and features pupils missing lessons, stealing phones and setting themselves on fire.

One pupil is described as fantasising and flirting with 39-year-old Miss Rustamova, while she says she would do anything for a smile from another. She writes: It's getting harder and harder to see them just as kids.

Pupils at Calder High School have set up a Facebook page asking for teachers Leonora Rustamova and Steve Cann's jobs to be saved following the publication of her book Stop! Don't Read This!

The suspensions prompted hundreds of pupils to hold mass demonstrations and create internet pressure groups supporting the pair. Former pupil Travis Downs one of those featured in the book, said pupils were now allowed to wear badges supporting the teachers on their coats but not on their school uniforms.

According to Friends of Rusty and Steve , a campaign group set up to reinstate the teachers, Cann was suspended for having the guts to stand up for Rusty. It is understood he took over her class after her suspension.

Chris Ratcliffe, a parent of former pupils, said the book was a work of fiction, even though some characters are based on real people. He added: I don't think there's anything there that would concern parents, unless they're Mary Whitehouse types. It's no worse than TV shows like Skins, and just as fictional. I mean, drug dealers under Calder High isn't going to happen.

Another of the named pupils, who has since left for college, said: I can understand why parents might not be happy. But of the five main characters all of us and our parents were fine with it. We like it. It helped us take school seriously.'

Natasha Gray's interests include physical exercise and dance - but the fact that she teaches these subjects at a secondary school has landed her in hot water.

The part-time model's revealing online portfolio was already common knowledge among secondary pupils when an irate parent wrote to Manor Community School in Cambridge to complain about the 'provocative pictures'.

Gray, who was voted Britain's sexiest teacher in an ITV competition in 2002, was immediately ordered to remove the photos on her 'Tasha' home page.

She was at work as usual yesterday after her behaviour was classed as misconduct rather than gross misconduct, but she is facing a severe reprimand.

Head teacher Ben Slade said the photos are certainly a disciplinary matter but that Miss Gray will not be suspended. He said teachers could have second jobs as long as it did not affect their work. But he claimed: This behaviour has brought the school into disrepute. It will be dealt with most severely and will certainly be a disciplinary matter.

Miss Gray's father Barry, a personal trainer, said he was proud of his daughter and that her modelling shots were 'tasteful'.

Comment: A Kick up the Headmaster's Orifice

4th April 2009. Thanks to Alan

What a sanctimonious pillock this headmaster is! The pictures of the teacher are totally innocuous.

This seems to be yet another example of the "profession" illusion among head teachers - insisting that teachers, perfectly routine waged white-collar workers, are members of a "profession" like some barrister on half a million a year.

If anybody's bringing the school into disrepute it's the idiot boss. I hope that the relevant teachers' union will back the woman to the hilt and suggest to the headmaster a suitable orifice into which to insert his arrogant "order" to take down the pictures.

A policewoman admitted working as a high-class call girl when she appeared before a judge.

PC Victoria Thorne was among a number of women working for the Notorious Girls escort agency, appearing on its website in provocative poses and using the name Kelly.

The officer admitted misconduct in a public office when she appeared at Newcastle Crown Court and was remanded in custody.

The case was adjourned for the preparation of a pre-sentence report but her barrister John Elvidge made no application for her bail to be extended.

Judge John Evans adjourned the case and told her: You have pleaded guilty to this matter for which you will be given appropriate credit in due course. In the meantime you must remain in custody.

Thorne appeared in court alongside six others, all charged with offences relating to prostitution. They are charged with conspiracy to manage brothels for prostitution and conspiracy to control prostitutes for gain.

Thorne will be sentenced later.