Abort 67 "intimidating protests" outside Blackfriars/London clinic

[SpookyFrank]

why don't you say things worth reading instead of things which a child of eight would be embarrassed with?

Has it occurred to you that you're not the sole arbiter of what's worth reading?

 

[Pickman's model]

Has it occurred to you that you're not the sole arbiter of what's worth reading?

you want someone else to say you're embarrrassing yourself? a second opinion, as it were?

 

[SpookyFrank]

you want someone else to say you're embarrrassing yourself? a second opinion, as it were?

Presumably you have a sock puppet available for this very purpose?

 

[BigTom]

Is there some legal significance to you saying "more than 2 members"?

The reason I ask is that a few years ago I went to an abortion clinic with my then girlfriend, to be met with a small scale protest/picket of two people. We both found this annoying/unpleasant, but thinking about it now, I would agree that they had a reasonable right to protest which I don't think they were exceeding.

The picture in the article linked to suggests a far larger protest which might be considered intimidating and therefore unreasonable (to me personally), but I'm wondering if there is a clear legal definition which might be relevant.

I thought that maybe s12/s14 of the public order act would define a procession / assembly as 3 or more people, but it doesn't - violent disorder needs 3 or more people, you need 12 for a riot. But maybe the numbers needed for something to be a procession/assembly are defined elsewhere.

(1)If the senior police officer, having regard to the time or place at which and the circumstances in which any public procession is being held or is intended to be held and to its route or proposed route, reasonably believes that—

(a)it may result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community, or

(b)the purpose of the persons organising it is the intimidation of others with a view to compelling them not to do an act they have a right to do, or to do an act they have a right not to do,

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/12

is the relevant part of the section (both are the same, except one is for processions, one for assemblies). Clearly the protestors would be contravening (b) and this could be used... it was originally brought in to deal with the violence surrounding orange order marches btw, but is now used for anyone and everyone... except these anti-choice tossers.

 

[Mr.Bishie]

When spotted in Brighton, they don't tend to last five minutes after opposition arrives. Fucking filthy bastards that they are.

 

[Pickman's model]

Presumably you have a sock puppet available for this very purpose?

only if you want one sweetcheeks

 

[andysays]

I thought that maybe s12/s14 of the public order act would define a procession / assembly as 3 or more people, but it doesn't - violent disorder needs 3 or more people, you need 12 for a riot. But maybe the numbers needed for something to be a procession/assembly are defined elsewhere.


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/12

is the relevant part of the section (both are the same, except one is for processions, one for assemblies). Clearly the protestors would be contravening (b) and this could be used... it was originally brought in to deal with the violence surrounding orange order marches btw, but is now used for anyone and everyone... except these anti-choice tossers.

Thanks for that. It's not clear to me if this act relates only to processions or assemblies for which permission has been asked and granted, or if it potentially applies to any moving or stationary gathering of people.

 

[Pickman's model]

Thanks for that. It's not clear to me if this act relates only to processions or assemblies for which permission has been asked and granted, or if it potentially applies to any moving or stationary gathering of people.

it does, yes

 

[andysays]

it does, yes

The former or the latter?

 

[Athos]

I thought that maybe s12/s14 of the public order act would define a procession / assembly as 3 or more people, but it doesn't - violent disorder needs 3 or more people, you need 12 for a riot. But maybe the numbers needed for something to be a procession/assembly are defined elsewhere.


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/12

is the relevant part of the section (both are the same, except one is for processions, one for assemblies). Clearly the protestors would be contravening (b) and this could be used... it was originally brought in to deal with the violence surrounding orange order marches btw, but is now used for anyone and everyone... except these anti-choice tossers.

I wonder if the reference to two or more is in respect of s61 The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

 

[Citizen66]

so people's right to protest flies out the window when you disgree with them. are you prepared to put your money where your mouth is and arrange or attend a counter-demonstration?

I know you're playing devil's advocate but is there any need to adopt liberal positions to have your fun?

I don't ever recall you crying over the BNP's 'right to protest', for example.

 

[Athos]

Thanks for that. It's not clear to me if this act relates only to processions or assemblies for which permission has been asked and granted, or if it potentially applies to any moving or stationary gathering of people.

Generally, you don't need police permission for a stationary assembly in a public place (with the exception of certain designated locations), as long as it's not blocking the highway.

 

[andysays]

Generally, you don't need police permission for a stationary assembly in a public place (with the exception of certain designated locations), as long as it's not blocking the highway.

So this potentially relates to any public assembly?

 

[Citizen66]

I don't necessarily agree they're cunts - I think that, were I convinced that abortion were the murder of a baby - a conclusion which I can understand someone coming to, even if I disagree - then I might be moved to campaign against it.

They probably are cunts though, tbf.

This topic gives me nothing but cognitive dissonance.

 

[Athos]

So this potentially relates to any public assembly?

I think so, yes. Which is why these people are able to hold these demonstrations without contravening the law. Had it been on private land, they could be removed, but, on public land, they just about get away with it. They stop just short of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, such that they don't fall foul of Public Order Act 1986; and, although what they do comes close to harassment, they avoid falling foul of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 by virtue of the fact that their conduct is not unreasonable (because the bar is, quite rightly, set high when it comes to infringing the fundamental rights of freedom of assemble and expression; and, they don't block the highway, so avoid falling foul of the Highways Act 1980.

 

[BigTom]

Thanks for that. It's not clear to me if this act relates only to processions or assemblies for which permission has been asked and granted, or if it potentially applies to any moving or stationary gathering of people.

It relates to any gathering, it's what was used to arrest everyone on the critical mass ride that went past the olympic stadium on the day of the opening ceremony for instance.

 

[BigTom]

I wonder if the reference to two or more is in respect of s61 The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

possibly

If the senior police officer present at the scene reasonably believes that two or more persons are trespassing on land and are present there with the common purpose of residing there for any period, that reasonable steps have been taken by or on behalf of the occupier to ask them to leave and—

but you can't be trespassing on the public footpath/highway so protesters who know their stuff won't fall foul of this. It may even be in case law that three or more people defines a gathering, rather than in statute law. There's also the bit of the CJA which defines many people you need for something to be a rave, but I think that was 7 or more.

 

[Athos]

possibly



but you can't be trespassing on the public footpath/highway so protesters who know their stuff won't fall foul of this. It may even be in case law that three or more people defines a gathering, rather than in statute law. There's also the bit of the CJA which defines many people you need for something to be a rave, but I think that was 7 or more.

I don't think there's any prohibition on two or more people gathering in a public place, so long as it's not one of the SOCPA locations, they're not part of a procession without permission, they're not obstructing the highway, and their conduct does not fall foul of either the Public order Act 1986 or Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

That's not to say the OB won't try to bully people off with threats of arrest, though.

 

[BigTom]

I think so, yes. Which is why these people are able to hold these demonstrations without contravening the law. Had it been on private land, they could be removed, but, on public land, they just about get away with it. They stop just short of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, such that they don't fall foul of Public Order Act 1986; and, although what they do comes close to harassment, they avoid falling foul of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 by virtue of the fact that their conduct is not unreasonable (because the bar is, quite rightly, set high when it comes to infringing the fundamental rights of freedom of assemble and expression; and, they don't block the highway, so avoid falling foul of the Highways Act 1980.

I haven't actually seen one of these demos, but do you not think that they would be considered to be trying to intimidate people into not having an abortion? Isn't that the point of demonstrating outside a clinic? I mean, we got nicked and some of us charged for being in fortnum and mason, and the CPS produced no evidence of individuals doing anything intimidating but got convictions* using Joint Enterprise on the argument that as a group we were intimidating and that we must have known that would be the case. This was aggravated trespass not s14 but it's very similar wording.
edit: I mean similar wording in terms of intention to stop people doing something lawful through intimidation

*because I can't tell the story often enough.. 30 people were ultimately taken to court, of the 145 arrested & charged. one person had their charges accidentally dropped by the cps, and weren't allowed to reinstate them. Westminster crown court can only hold 10 defendants in a court, so the 29 were split into 3 trial for administrative purposes. Different magistrates, different results - two groups were found guilty, one group found not guilty and the two guilty groups got different fines/costs. fucking justice eh?

 

[andysays]

I haven't actually seen one of these demos, but do you not think that they would be considered to be trying to intimidate people into not having an abortion? Isn't that the point of demonstrating outside a clinic? I mean, we got nicked and some of us charged for being in fortnum and mason, and the CPS produced no evidence of individuals doing anything intimidating but got convictions* using Joint Enterprise on the argument that as a group we were intimidating and that we must have known that would be the case. This was aggravated trespass not s14 but it's very similar wording.
edit: I mean similar wording in terms of intention to stop people doing something lawful through intimidation

*because I can't tell the story often enough.. 30 people were ultimately taken to court, of the 145 arrested & charged. one person had their charges accidentally dropped by the cps, and weren't allowed to reinstate them. Westminster crown court can only hold 10 defendants in a court, so the 29 were split into 3 trial for administrative purposes. Different magistrates, different results - two groups were found guilty, one group found not guilty and the two guilty groups got different fines/costs. fucking justice eh?

They presumably could be considered to be trying to intimidate people into not having an abortion, but it would be up to the senior police officer present to decide whether or not to make that decision.

We all know that the law isn't applied equitably to everyone, but my original enquiry was whether there is some particular way in which three or more people can be prevented from doing something which two can get away with. It appears from the suggestions made so far that there isn't.

 

[Athos]

I haven't actually seen one of these demos, but do you not think that they would be considered to be trying to intimidate people into not having an abortion? Isn't that the point of demonstrating outside a clinic? I mean, we got nicked and some of us charged for being in fortnum and mason, and the CPS produced no evidence of individuals doing anything intimidating but got convictions* using Joint Enterprise on the argument that as a group we were intimidating and that we must have known that would be the case. This was aggravated trespass not s14 but it's very similar wording.
edit: I mean similar wording in terms of intention to stop people doing something lawful through intimidation

*because I can't tell the story often enough.. 30 people were ultimately taken to court, of the 145 arrested & charged. one person had their charges accidentally dropped by the cps, and weren't allowed to reinstate them. Westminster crown court can only hold 10 defendants in a court, so the 29 were split into 3 trial for administrative purposes. Different magistrates, different results - two groups were found guilty, one group found not guilty and the two guilty groups got different fines/costs. fucking justice eh?

Are you referring to a1(1A) of PfH'97? If so, then I think that, on the face of it, a lot of what they do might fall within that category, but is protected by the defence in s1(3) i.e. that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable. I think that a court would be very reluctant to hold this conduct unreasonable, and thereby criminalise a peaceful protest, given that to do so might amount to a breach of articles 8, 9, 10 and 11 of ECHR.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

They presumably could be considered to be trying to intimidate people into not having an abortion.

Ya think? With those big poster images of foetuses?

That's exactly what they are doing. And trying to make those not intimidated feel shit about themselves. I know they justify it to themselves as saving the life of the foetus, but that does not change the cuntishness of the behaviour.

 

[BigTom]

Are you referring to a1(1A) of PfH'97? If so, then I think that, on the face of it, a lot of what they do might fall within that category, but is protected by the defence in s1(3) i.e. that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable. I think that a court would be very reluctant to hold this conduct unreasonable, and thereby criminalise a peaceful protest, given that to do so might amount to a breach of articles 8, 9 and 10 of ECHR.

No, to s14 1(b) POA 1986:

(1)If the senior police officer, having regard to the time or place at which and the circumstances in which any public assembly is being held or is intended to be held, reasonably believes that—

(a)it may result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community, or

(b)the purpose of the persons organising it is the intimidation of others with a view to compelling them not to do an act they have a right to do, or to do an act they have a right not to do,

which strikes me as being very similar in wording to Aggravated Trespass, s68 1(a) CJA 1994:

68Offence of aggravated trespass.
A person commits the offence of aggravated trespass if he trespasses on land and, in relation to any lawful activity which persons are engaging in or are about to engage in on that or adjoining land, does there anything which is intended by him to have the effect—

(a)of intimidating those persons or any of them so as to deter them or any of them from engaging in that activity,

I mean I think the whole joint enterprise thing was fucking shit and a misuse of what that was intended for, and of course it's political anyway and the reason the police don't use s14 (or at least don't try to use it) is that they have no political pressure to do so, whereas they had a lot of pressure to arrest everyone involved with ukuncut, but if we ignore the reality of the world, then if one applies, the other does too I think?

 

[andysays]

Ya think? With those big poster images of foetuses?

That's exactly what they are doing. And trying to make those not intimidated feel shit about themselves. I know they justify it to themselves as saving the life of the foetus, but that does not change the cuntishness of the behaviour.

I'm not in any way trying to say they aren't behaving to intimidate - I'm saying that legally it's up to the police to decide if they are and to therefore arrest or threaten to arrest.

We can all condemn them from the comfort of our keyboards, and we can organise a counter demo if we think it's appropriate - I was asking a specific question about the existing legal position, but I wasn't suggesting for one moment that's the only aspect which is relevant.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm not in any way trying to say they aren't behaving to intimidate - I'm saying that legally it's up to the police to decide if they are and to therefore arrest or threaten to arrest.

We can all condemn them from the comfort of our keyboards, and we can organise a counter demo if we think it's appropriate - I was asking a specific question about the existing legal position, but I wasn't suggesting for one moment that's the only aspect which is relevant.

Well this is where BigTom's point comes in. Yes, there is the capacity to move them on if there is pressure on the police to do so. But the relative powerlessness in society of the women using the clinic means the police don't give a fuck about them or their wellbeing. Unlike an establishment like Fortnum and Mason...

 

[Pickman's model]

The former or the latter?

yes

 

[Pickman's model]

Well this is where BigTom's point comes in. Yes, there is the capacity to move them on if there is pressure on the police to do so. But the relative powerlessness in society of the women using the clinic means the police don't give a fuck about them or their wellbeing. Unlike an establishment like Fortnum and Mason...

i don't believe fortnum & mason offer abortions. but i'll look more carefully next time i'm down that way.

 

[Pickman's model]

I know you're playing devil's advocate but is there any need to adopt liberal positions to have your fun?

I don't ever recall you crying over the BNP's 'right to protest', for example.

i don't believe the issue was ever raised. nonetheless, while they have that right i and others like me have the same right to make our own feelings known. but there's nothing more liberal than demanding people you disagree with are jogged on by the state.

 

[Athos]

No, to s14 1(b) POA 1986:



which strikes me as being very similar in wording to Aggravated Trespass, s68 1(a) CJA 1994:



I mean I think the whole joint enterprise thing was fucking shit and a misuse of what that was intended for, and of course it's political anyway and the reason the police don't use s14 (or at least don't try to use it) is that they have no political pressure to do so, whereas they had a lot of pressure to arrest everyone involved with ukuncut, but if we ignore the reality of the world, then if one applies, the other does too I think?

No. I think the difference is that the PfH offence only requires harassment, whereas s14(1)(b) can only be engaged if the senior officer reasoable believes there's intimidation - a higher threshold. As odious as what they do is, I don't think it goes as far as to amount to intimidation; whilst those on the receiving end are understandably upset, I doubt they could reasonably claim they are are in fear of being harmed. The anti-choice protesters are cute enough not to do anything which would rise that possibility: they don't rant and rave, issue threats, invade people's personal space or gesticulate.

 

[farmerbarleymow]

I wonder how these cunts would react to people doing similar behaviour outside their places of worship (assuming they attend such places)? I suspect they'd be quick to ring the police whinging about being harassed.