Extinction Rebellion

[Dillinger4]

Vauxhall’s covered by the section 14 too. Everywhere covered by the Met and City of London plod is covered.

The section 14 is legally very dubious, but by the time it is declared duff everything will be over. Weird that it happened a few hours after The City was targeted...

I think the City should be the target now. It always should be.

 

[IC3D]

Are they tactically failing?
By being fluffy they are maintaining a persistent presence on the streets and media, getting on people's tits long enough for they're/our aims to sink in.

 

[Gramsci]

Dropped some food off at Vauxhall. Lot more police hanging around the camp. But still lots of tents.

 

[IC3D]

I'm in Vauxhall and 2 van loads wolfing down meal deals outside Tesco. I'd say they are about to go in. Helicopter over camp too by the looks

 

[TopCat]

Well if they clear the gardens you might expect them to take Vauxhall Cross instead.

 

[Rivendelboy]

I agree with Monbiot on a lot of things, broadly speaking. But this just feels weird. "I plan to get nicked"

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Boooo

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Boooo

That is private land, so if the owner (South Bank?) doesn't mind then it is not a police issue???

 

[chilango]

Tate have a long history of being in hock to oil companies, no?

 

[8ball]

Tate have a long history of being in hock to oil companies, no?

Didn't they divest (or change corporate relationships) response to some recent-ish actions?
Guess maybe not, hence XR being back...

 

[not-bono-ever]

That is private land, so if the owner (South Bank?) doesn't mind then it is not a police issue???

If the public have access then it falls under public assembly. Needs to be somewhere with no unfettered public access by default

 

[Pickman's model]

Tate have a long history of being in hock to oil companies, no?

sugar more an obvious link

 

[8ball]

sugar more an obvious link

.

<I just said something really dumb>

<or, for all my frenemies out there, I just *noticed* I said something really dumb...>

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

BP to end Tate sponsorship after 26 years

 

[BigTom]

Does anyone here know more about "Section 14"?

It appears to be very wide ranging way to stop protest.

Yes it is.

Section 12 and Section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986.
One deals with static protest, the other with processions/marches but other than that the wording/powers are the same.
Public Order Act 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,

he may give directions imposing on the persons organising or taking part in the assembly such conditions as to the place at which the assembly may be (or continue to be) held, its maximum duration, or the maximum number of persons who may constitute it, as appear to him necessary to prevent such disorder, damage, disruption or intimidation.

Of course the question of what is meant by serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community is left vague and open. The act was orginally brought in as a response to the orange order marches in NI and to give police there the power to stop them going down particular roads or into particular areas, as this tended to result in riots.
Since then, power creep has happened, and now it's used for more or less any protest. The arrests of the critical mass cyclists who went to ride past the olympic stadium on the evening of the opening ceremony of the 2012 olympics were arrested under s14 powers.

It's important to note that you can only be arrested under s12/s14 if you are aware that an order has been put in place. It's important that you do not accept anything from police as they will try to hand you notices that the order is in place and if you take one, you make yourself liable to arrest. Similarly, if you hear one is in place don't put it on social media or tell anyone else.
Obviously the police can and will arrest you under the s12/s14 order even if you haven't heard anything of it but it makes it hard to charge you for the offence if they can't show you knew.

 

[Pickman's model]

Yes it is.

Section 12 and Section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986.
One deals with static protest, the other with processions/marches but other than that the wording/powers are the same.
Public Order Act 1986



Of course the question of what is meant by serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community is left vague and open. The act was orginally brought in as a response to the orange order marches in NI and to give police there the power to stop them going down particular roads or into particular areas, as this tended to result in riots.
Since then, power creep has happened, and now it's used for more or less any protest. The arrests of the critical mass cyclists who went to ride past the olympic stadium on the evening of the opening ceremony of the 2012 olympics were arrested under s14 powers.

It's important to note that you can only be arrested under s12/s14 if you are aware that an order has been put in place. It's important that you do not accept anything from police as they will try to hand you notices that the order is in place and if you take one, you make yourself liable to arrest. Similarly, if you hear one is in place don't put it on social media or tell anyone else.
Obviously the police can and will arrest you under the s12/s14 order even if you haven't heard anything of it but it makes it hard to charge you for the offence if they can't show you knew.

but it seems to me from the law quote you had that this can't lawfully/legally be used to ban demonstrations, that they could say a maximum of 1 at junction 1 of the m1 but not a maximum of none anywhere within the metropolitan police district.

 

[BigTom]

but it seems to me from the law quote you had that this can't lawfully/legally be used to ban demonstrations, that they could say a maximum of 1 at junction 1 of the m1 but not a maximum of none anywhere within the metropolitan police district.

I think that they can impose a maximum of zero protestors within a specific area. Whether they could do that within the whole of the met police area I don't know but they can certainly say "no-one in trafalgar square from 9pm 15/10 to xx:xx xx/xx". Again, no idea what the law says about how long a s12/s14 order lasts for, or if that's down to the police to decide.
It should be really pushing it to decide a demo is affecting the whole of the met police area, causing disruption to life of the whole of london or whatever. I don't really know who gets to decide or how to be fair.
It's a shitty law anyway and used way more widely than any reasonable person would consider justified based on the wording of the law and the situation it was brought in for.

 

[Pickman's model]

I think that they can impose a maximum of zero protestors within a specific area. Whether they could do that within the whole of the met police area I don't know but they can certainly say "no-one in trafalgar square from 9pm 15/10 to xx:xx xx/xx". Again, no idea what the law says about how long a s12/s14 order lasts for, or if that's down to the police to decide.
It should be really pushing it to decide a demo is affecting the whole of the met police area, causing disruption to life of the whole of london or whatever. I don't really know who gets to decide or how to be fair.
It's a shitty law anyway and used way more widely than any reasonable person would consider justified based on the wording of the law and the situation it was brought in for.

seems to me the underlying assumption is that this is for demonstration management, so it can be restricted in location, duration and numbers. there's to my admittedly non-legal mind nothing that says 'no protest by anyone in the whole of london' - management, not prohibition

 

[IC3D]

 

[Libertad]

Does an application for a s12/s14 have to be made to a magistrate BigTom?

 

[Pickman's model]

Does an application for a s12/s14 have to be made to a magistrate BigTom?

no, it's something the cops decide.

 

[BigTom]

Does an application for a s12/s14 have to be made to a magistrate BigTom?

as PM said, just decided by a senior police officer, can be imposed immediately with no oversight until after the fact (and I doubt any oversight has ever happened, the critical mass ride arrests were surely a high point in the misuse of this law and I'm not aware of anything happening after that)

 

[BigTom]

seems to me the underlying assumption is that this is for demonstration management, so it can be restricted in location, duration and numbers. there's to my admittedly non-legal mind nothing that says 'no protest by anyone in the whole of london' - management, not prohibition

Yeah, I'd agree with that, although I'd say that in practical terms, managing a demonstration by saying nobody is allowed to attend is the same thing as prohibition. Whether they could impose the order on an area as large as london I really don't know.

 

[8ball]

BP to end Tate sponsorship after 26 years

Cheers - think that's probably what I was half-remembering earlier.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

If the S14 is subsequently judged to have been unlawful, anyone nicked over it will have been unlawfully arrested, which with a decent brief can lead to a handsome pay-day

 

[Gramsci]

as PM said, just decided by a senior police officer, can be imposed immediately with no oversight until after the fact (and I doubt any oversight has ever happened, the critical mass ride arrests were surely a high point in the misuse of this law and I'm not aware of anything happening after that)

I find it quite staggering that peaceful protest can be stopped in this way without application to courts first.

 

[Gramsci]

Yeah, I'd agree with that, although I'd say that in practical terms, managing a demonstration by saying nobody is allowed to attend is the same thing as prohibition. Whether they could impose the order on an area as large as london I really don't know.

Do you think this use of law may contravene European Convention on Human Rights?

 

[Gramsci]

Boooo

For non Londoners the protest artwork isn't blocking a road. This was done in front of Tate Modern and not in anyone's way.

Police aren't doing themselves any PR favours tearing this down.

 

[BigTom]

Do you think this use of law may contravene European Convention on Human Rights?

I doubt it, only because it's been used so often for some decades and I'd have thought it would have been challenged on human rights grounds by now, if that were possible. It can be challenged in court and if found unlawful anyone arrested would be up for hefty compensation but I'm not aware of any previous challenges to this law (not a lawyer or anything, don't take that comment as meaning that I know there haven't been, I'm just not aware of it). Perhaps it's always been challenged and won in UK courts and never made it to ECHR (or the supreme court since that's been in place).

 

[andysays]

Looks like the S14 order will be challenged

Extinction Rebellion activists are continuing protests despite a London-wide ban by police. The group says it has taken initial steps towards a judicial review of the ban. Lawyers and politicians have also criticised the move...

...Extinction Rebellion said it had taken the "first steps" towards a judicial review of the Met's "disproportionate and unprecedented attempt to curtail peaceful protest. Our lawyers have delivered a 'Letter before Action' to the Met and asked for an immediate response," a statement read. Tobias Garnett, a human rights lawyer working for the movement, said the letter warned police to withdraw the order.

He said the campaign group had given the police a deadline of 1430 BST to respond, or it would file a claim in the High Court. "We will be looking for an expedited hearing either today or tomorrow morning," he added. Speaking to the Victoria Derbyshire programme, Extinction Rebellion campaigner and former Met Police officer Paul Stephens said: "Police are being really sloppy with the law, and it won't stand up in court."