Second round of arrests this evening re: wedding

[littlebabyjesus]

There it is – it is an odd and often ridiculous world. And anyone who really was planning to demonstrate against this war, those cuts or whatever ought to keep bloody quiet about it beforehand. It's a case of picking your fights too. Demonstrating against cuts, war, (add cause here) achieves nothing from what I can tell. Do it for a giggle, for sure, but not with some pretence that it is a meaningful political act.

I missed this. It doesn't really work, you know. That's what I meant about picking your fights. I'm a republican, but I can't think of any kind of protest action on the day of a royal wedding that would further the republican cause. Nobody is going to want to listen.

 

[MellySingsDoom]

Reports of kettlings and arrests in Brighton coming through at the Brighton Mayday thing (via Twitter).

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yes because if they can arrest him today they can arrest you tomorrow. Knight is an idiot but being an idiot doesn't give the state the right to nick him for nothing

There was me thinking that the whole argument is that the state has no right to nick Knight or anyone else under the circumstances they did.

 

[ViolentPanda]

When the state starts pre arresting people ahead of future demonstrations will you use the same argument?

If cards are played right, we won't have the need to, because the behaviour used last week will be ruled illegal. It has no basis in current law (although I'm sure that the Home Sec is hoping that it won't be challenged, so she can use last week as a precedent for legislative change).

 

[dylans]

I missed this. It doesn't really work, you know. That's what I meant about picking your fights. I'm a republican, but I can't think of any kind of protest action on the day of a royal wedding that would further the republican cause. Nobody is going to want to listen.

Perhaps this is true but it misses the point. The worthiness or otherwise of protesting this event is irrelevant to the issue which is the state pre arresting people who have committed no crime. What concerns me is the precedent involved and the dangers of this action becoming routine and normal in future and extending to us all. I think we can expect a lot more of this in future.

 

[dylans]

If cards are played right, we won't have the need to, because the behaviour used last week will be ruled illegal. It has no basis in current law (although I'm sure that the Home Sec is hoping that it won't be challenged, so she can use last week as a precedent for legislative change).

I know this is your argument and it is perhaps the strongest argument against what I am saying. However I disagree with your conclusions. I think it will indeed be declared illegal (because it is) but it won't stop further actions of this type. The police will simply accept that having these kinds of actions declared illegal is part of the process, pay out some cash and continue regardless. In future I expect these kinds of pre-arrests to become common place ahead of demonstrations as a way of taking out leading figures and activists etc.

 

[dylans]

There was me thinking that the whole argument is that the state has no right to nick Knight or anyone else under the circumstances they did.

Well they don't have any right.. But they knicked him anyway. (and more importantly raided a load of squats and arrested lots of others too)

 

[revlon]

I know this is your argument and it is perhaps the strongest argument against what I am saying. However I disagree with your conclusions. I think it will indeed be declared illegal (because it is) but it won't stop further actions of this type. The police will simply accept that having these kinds of actions declared illegal is part of the process, pay out some cash and continue regardless. In future I expect these kinds of pre-arrests to become common place ahead of demonstrations as a way of taking out leading figures and activists etc.

only if those leading figures were arrogant and dumb enough to go to the press about all the unlawful shit they were gonna do on the day.

 

[dylans]

only if those leading figures were arrogant and dumb enough to go to the press about all the unlawful shit they were gonna do on the day.

Was that true of everyone arrested? Was that true of the Queer resistance people in Soho Square or the half a dozen squats that were raided or the zombie wedding people who were violently attacked by plain clothes police? Or the hundreds of anti cuts groups who were closed down on facebook after receiving complaints from the police? Wake up this isn't about Knight. It's about a pretty unprecedented assault on basic civil liberties by a state increasing in confidence that they can get away with this kind of action. Frankly given the pathetic response by people who should know better it seems like they were right. They can

Do me one favour ok. Remember this discussion. In a year or two's time. Remember this when police raids on homes ahead of every anti cuts demo becomes the norm. Then tell me I was wrong

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I know this is your argument and it is perhaps the strongest argument against what I am saying. However I disagree with your conclusions. I think it will indeed be declared illegal (because it is) but it won't stop further actions of this type. The police will simply accept that having these kinds of actions declared illegal is part of the process, pay out some cash and continue regardless. In future I expect these kinds of pre-arrests to become common place ahead of demonstrations as a way of taking out leading figures and activists etc.

I don't quite follow the logic there. If the actions are declared illegal this time, that makes it more difficult to use such tactics next time, not easier. And in fact, the authorities might regret having their hand called over what is in reality a relatively trivial matter, leaving them with less room to manoeuvre when there is something concrete at stake.

If anything, I see these actions as a twitchy sign of weakness, a lapse in judgement, rather than a confident show of strength.

 

[dylans]

I don't quite follow the logic there. If the actions are declared illegal this time, that makes it more difficult to use such tactics next time, not easier. And in fact, the authorities might regret having their hand called over what is in reality a relatively trivial matter, leaving them with less room to manoeuvre when there is something concrete at stake.

I don't think the issue is really one of legality. The real issue is one of acceptability. I think actions like this are aimed at normalising these kinds of actions long term. Like kettling and the use of intelligence and undercover cops. They may well be declared illegal but does any one really think they will stop? Perhaps these arrests will be declared illegal, perhaps not. We will see but the overwhelming lesson the cops will take from this is that people don't really give a shit about arbitrary arrest or due process or even the legality of their actions and that they can get away with it without too much fuss being made

 

[Lo Siento.]

If anything, I see these actions as a twitchy sign of weakness, a lapse in judgement, rather than a confident show of strength.

they might well be, but only if they're challenged on it. If they're not challenged on it, and challenged forcefully for it, it might well become the rule.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm not saying those who were arbitrarily arrested shouldn't take the police to court. They should, and I would if it happened to me. But I do disagree with dylans about the lessons the police will learn if they lose in court – if they do lose, they may come to regret having done it.

 

[revlon]

Was that true of everyone arrested? Was that true of the Queer resistance people in Soho Square or the half a dozen squats that were raided or the zombie wedding people who were violently attacked by plain clothes police? Or the hundreds of anti cuts groups who were closed down on facebook after receiving complaints from the police? Wake up this isn't about Knight. It's about a pretty unprecedented assault on basic civil liberties by a state increasing in confidence that they can get away with this kind of action. Frankly given the pathetic response by people who should know better it seems like they were right. They can

Do me one favour ok. Remember this discussion. In a year or two's time. Remember this when police raids on homes ahead of every anti cuts demo becomes the norm. Then tell me I was wrong

well i was repsonding to your assertion 'pre-arrests to become common place as a way of taking out leading figures'.[As side issue chris knight is not a leading figure but a very useful idiot for the police].

What i would say dylans all this kind of stuff happened 10 years ago around the anti-capitalist movement. Ask any football hooligan about the erosion of civil liberties. This is the state's response from a position of weakness, not confidence.

 

[laptop]

the overwhelming lesson the cops will take from this

Take from what?

From people's failure to agree with you on a bulletin board?

 

[dylans]

well i was repsonding to your assertion 'pre-arrests to become common place as a way of taking out leading figures'.[As side issue chris knight is not a leading figure but a very useful idiot for the police].

What i would say dylans all this kind of stuff happened 10 years ago around the anti-capitalist movement. Ask any football hooligan about the erosion of civil liberties. This is the state's response from a position of weakness, not confidence.

Maybe you are right. Maybe it is already too late and this stuff has become the norm a long time ago. Labour under Blair certainly did his best to erode civil liberties across the board. I have been out of the country for a long time. Over a decade until a year or two ago so maybe I see things through slightly different eyes. I know the country I left and I see what is happening now and frankly I find this stuff quite disturbing. Perhaps that's my naivete and things have really gone down the toilet in the past decade and this kind of action is already normal and nothing new at all. Perhaps you have seen it all before and it is only shocking to my fresh naive eyes. I hope not

 

[ymu]

Yes because if they can arrest him today they can arrest you tomorrow. Knight is an idiot but being an idiot doesn't give the state the right to nick him for nothing

Well, yes. There were a couple of hundred people pre-banned from the City of Westminster or pre-emptively arrested. Focusing on one buffoon who few have much sympathy with would appear to be a propaganda own-goal, not to mention missing the point by a country mile.

 

[dylans]

Well, yes. There were a couple of hundred people pre-banned from the City of Westminster or pre-emptively arrested. Focusing on one buffoon who few have much sympathy with would appear to be a propaganda own-goal, not to mention missing the point by a country mile.

I entirely agree.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

When was it different, though? In the 1980s? Not really – Battle of the Beanfield etc. In the 1970s? Nope – internment in Northern Ireland, the 'sus' law. In the 1960s? Well at the start of that decade, state censorship was still in place, homosexuality was illegal and we still had the death penalty.

Again, I'm not defending any of this stuff, but there never was a time when the police would not have taken action upon hearing of plans to disrupt the wedding of a future king.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Well, yes. There were a couple of hundred people pre-banned from the City of Westminster or pre-emptively arrested. Focusing on one buffoon who few have much sympathy with would appear to be a propaganda own-goal, not to mention missing the point by a country mile.

Anyone arrested should challenge their arrest in court. I don't see anyone saying different.

 

[dylans]

When was it different, though? In the 1980s? Not really – Battle of the Beanfield etc. In the 1970s? Nope – internment in Northern Ireland. In the 1960s? Well at the start of that decade, state censorship was still in place, homosexuality was illegal and we still had the death penalty.

Again, I'm not defending any of this stuff, but there never was a time when the police would not have taken action upon hearing of plans to disrupt the wedding of a future king.

Can you think of a time when hundreds of people were pre emptively arrested and homes raided because of suspicion they were planning peaceful demonstrations? Or for wearing fancy dress and singing songs in a park? Not saying it hasn't happened but I can't recall it. It's quite unprecedented isn't it?

(I think it has happened to some civil disobedience groups such as environmentalists etc but that is the only comparison I can think of)

 

[revlon]

Can you think of a time when hundreds of people were pre emptively arrested and homes raided because of suspicion they were planning peaceful demonstrations? Or for wearing fancy dress and singing songs in a park? Not saying it hasn't happened but I can't recall it. It's quite unprecedented isn't it?

(I think it has happened to some civil disobedience groups such as environmentalists etc but that is the only comparison I can think of)

when was this?

 

[ymu]

The mass arrests before that power station action - at the school, with the pretty boy undercover copper who fucked up the prosecutions.

 

[dylans]

when was this?

2009 raid and pre arrests of Nottingham climate change activists who were planning to occupy Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station. Case collapsed after undercover cop Mark Kennedy was identified.

http://www.theecologist.org/News/ne...es_over_use_of_undercover_police_officer.html

 

[revlon]

Can you think of a time when hundreds of people were pre emptively arrested and homes raided because of suspicion they were planning peaceful demonstrations? Or for wearing fancy dress and singing songs in a park? Not saying it hasn't happened but I can't recall it. It's quite unprecedented isn't it?

(I think it has happened to some civil disobedience groups such as environmentalists etc but that is the only comparison I can think of)

plus knight wasn't planning a peaceful demonstration was he - if you actually read what he says to the media. He, and only he, smeared himself across the media telling them what "the anarchists" were going to do at the royal wedding. Take away knight's fucked-up bullshit ego news stories and we have nothing, nothing going on for the royal wedding, no anarchist troublemakers, no counter protests, no violence promised.

 

[revlon]

2009 raid and pre arrests of Nottingham climate change activists who were planning to occupy Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station. Case collapsed after undercover cop Mark Kennedy was identified.

http://www.theecologist.org/News/ne...es_over_use_of_undercover_police_officer.html

not the royal wedding then.

 

[dylans]

plus knight wasn't planning a peaceful demonstration was he - if you actually read what he says to the media. He, and only he, smeared himself across the media telling them what "the anarchists" were going to do at the royal wedding. Take away knight's fucked-up bullshit ego news stories and we have nothing, nothing going on for the royal wedding, no anarchist troublemakers, no counter protests, no violence promised.

Fuck knight. As ymu has pointed out, he's a distraction. Much more concerning is the hundreds of arrests and exclusions as well as house and squat raids etc. This is not about knight is it. Its about an across the board assault on the right to free speech for everyone

 

[ymu]

not the royal wedding then.

His post started with "Can you think of a time when ..."

 

[dylans]

not the royal wedding then.

No. read my post again, I think you are missing my point which is that these pre arrests are relatively unprecidented. The example I gave is simply the only other occurance of pre emptive arrests of peaceful protestors that I can think of. Please don't be deliberately dim.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I know this is your argument and it is perhaps the strongest argument against what I am saying. However I disagree with your conclusions. I think it will indeed be declared illegal (because it is) but it won't stop further actions of this type. The police will simply accept that having these kinds of actions declared illegal is part of the process, pay out some cash and continue regardless. In future I expect these kinds of pre-arrests to become common place ahead of demonstrations as a way of taking out leading figures and activists etc.

If it were as simple for the police and the Home Office as that, I'd be inclined to agree with you, however, it isn't. "pre-arrests" are not legislated under our extant law, which means that the govt has one of three choices:

1) continue the behaviour, in which case the law lords will rule against them, which will leave not just the government and police, but the individuals that embody those institutions open to legal action.

2) Legislate for new powers, which would probably require the Parliament Act, because very few MPs who care about getting re-elected will vote for a law that has the power to deleteriously affect a majority of their constituents.

3) concede that the tactic is a bust, that it worked once, but that it would be expensive, inconvenient and garner too much bad publicity to warrant further use.