Thread for discussing SOCPA lone mass demo with Mark Thomas

[laptop]

Nice pix.

You didn't catch what his placard said?

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

no sorry apprently not wasn't really there for the photos innit

 

[netbob]

So, basically the police cannot ever apply the law properly then?

The problem isnt with the way the Police police it, they are in a pretty shitty position IMO. The problem is the silly law where people cannot have a protest outside the place where they elect people to make their laws. People are testing/plaing with this law to show it for what it is.silly.

 

[detective-boy]

The problem isnt with the way the Police police it, they are in a pretty shitty position IMO. The problem is the silly law where people cannot have a protest outside the place where they elect people to make their laws. People are testing/plaing with this law to show it for what it is.silly.

I agree the law is excessive - it is plain that it has been passed for the convenience of the government who were finding it very tiresome to have to see all these pesky protestors.

But there were some posts early on in this tread which suggested that the police, rather than trying to enforce the law in a reasonable way, were acting as the willing agents of the government and were refusing permission to protest and were imposing ridiculous conditions which made the protests impossible. And it seems that this event has shown that to be bollocks.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

I agree the law is excessive - it is plain that it has been passed for the convenience of the government who were finding it very tiresome to have to see all these pesky protestors.

But there were some posts early on in this tread which suggested that the police, rather than trying to enforce the law in a reasonable way, were acting as the willing agents of the government and were refusing permission to protest and were imposing ridiculous conditions which made the protests impossible. And it seems that this event has shown that to be bollocks.

you moan others put words into your mouth... jesus i don'tthink anyone whose actually taking part int his think's it has anything at all to do with the police way to go patronising the intelligence of the people protesting the DB but to say that the police aren't in some wya involved int his process is a nonsense they are charged with up holding the law if they choose they can prevent any demo on any grounds, even if the law itself has been cast by the prevailing govt.

They are at the moment playing ball and assiting people who are taking part however if this becomes a regular thing how long is it going to be before they start complaining about the extra resourcing this is costing them and thus 'diverting' extra funds away from 'real' policing?

At this point they have two choices complain to the govt about the extra resources this is taken and apply for more funding to tackle it (unlikely) or will start to prevent demos such as this on the grounds of cost. (or maybe start a process to get legislation for a paid for protest licence which will then cover the admin charges.) either way when push comes to shove the police do have the abilty to turn down the protest on any grounds. all it would take is a guliani type no tollerence policy with in the met and bang the right to protest is removed...

your argument is disengenious; you are attempting to play the acab card where none is being presented...

 

[detective-boy]

your argument is disengenious; you are attempting to play the acab card where none is being presented...

Er ...

So maybe they could legally get away with specifying:

...a spot 1km away from parliament square, of a one metre square
...a very sort time period (eg 1 minute)
...one person (obviously not a problem for a 'sole protestor')
...no placards
...complete silence

Which would more or less be equivalent to not giving permission at all surely?

(And if you actually bothered to read either the law or the thread you'd find that:

when push comes to shove the police do have the abilty to turn down the protest on any grounds.

is more total bollocks. The law obliges them to grant permission is application is properly made.)

 

[TeeJay]

...The law obliges them to grant permission is application is properly made...

People were told to end at 7pm and Brian Haw has been limited to a space of 3 metres.

Surely the tradition in the UK is that people are free to do what the want to unless it is against the law - ie harmful to other people/the public in some way.

Making any protests conditional on the police setting the parameters and requiring six days prior notice is surely a reversal of this basic and ancient freedom?

(Having said that I was under the impression the police already have powers to limit protests in any case, which they use to prevent public order situations etc - they simply have to read the riot act, quote anti-terror laws, ask someone to 'move along' or say something about 'blocking a public right of way' or 'causing alarm or distress'.)

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

(And if you actually bothered to read either the law or the thread you'd find that:

sorry how is what you have quoted in any way an attempt to say that ACAB or moreover that the police would in all likelyhood try and stop the demo...

the phrase i beleive is clutching at straws...

and if you had read the thread you'd see i have been contributing for some 4 pages or so...

if you are going to cry bully boys at least do it in a place where it's happening you doofus...

is more total bollocks. The law obliges them to grant permission is application is properly made.)

unless it:

A) causes hinderence to any person wishing to enter or leave the palace of westminster
b) causes hinderence to proper operatioon of parliament
c) cause serious public disorder
d) causes serious damage to property
e)causes disruption to life in the community
f)causes a security risk in any part of the designated area
g) causes risk to safety of the members of the public (including any taking part in the demonstration)

so those are some pretty heavy caveats to suggest that they can refuse on any of those grounds again to say that these interpreatation of the legislation is not down to the senior officer in charge at the time is disengenious and contray to the actual fact. If it is deemed that any of those circumstances arise or are likely to arise they can curtail, inhibit or prevent the demonstration before or during it.

So please STOP playing the "GWAD Urban's just cop bashing again" card when you are deliberately misrepresenting others viewpoints inorder to tub thumb you own particual soap box issue and are deliberately and willfully ignoring the actual clauses within the legislation....

It
A) detracts from the thread and it's topic and
B) has no basis in the reality of the thread or the situation.

 

[detective-boy]

so those are some pretty heavy caveats to suggest that they can refuse on any of those grounds again

They cannot refuse on those grounds.

You clearly do not understand what the law actually says. Go read and understand it and it may be worth discussing further. Until then it's a waste of time.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

They cannot refuse on those grounds.

You clearly do not understand what the law actually says. Go read and understand it and it may be worth discussing further. Until then it's a waste of time.

they can it's printed on the letter they sent me to confirm that i could protest word for word...

So either the MET are sending out inaccurate letters to memebers of the public regarding the legislation which would be very news worthy indeed or you are so far away from being right in YOUR interpreatation of the leglislation that you have made yourself look like an arse which is it...

For once i'm afraid my moneys on the MET not the 'retired' Cop with a persicution complex...

 

[winjer]

So either the MET are sending out inaccurate letters to memebers of the public regarding the legislation which would be very news worthy indeed or you are so far away from being right in YOUR interpreatation of the leglislation that you have made yourself look like an arse which is it...

No, he's right and you are not just wrong about the law, you haven't even read the letter properly.

The police cannot refuse permission when they receive a SOCPA-compliant* application, however they can impose conditions both before and during the demonstration.

* Meaning one of their forms or a letter stating name&address of an organizer, location, date, start time and duration.

 

[winjer]

So it sounds like some of the assumptions about the law being made early on in this thread (such as "The police will refuse permission" and "The police will impose ridiculous conditions so as to make the protest impossible") are simply not true then. [...] I wonder if Mark Thomas was hoping for (a) lots of refusals; (b) lots of ridiculous conditions and / or (c) lots of arrests / moving on of protesters. If so he must be rather disappointed.

Not assumptions made by those organizing the masslonedemo, it must be said. Mark wasn't hoping for, or even expecting any of those things. His aims as far I'm aware were to (a) get media coverage (b) mobilize a decent number of people and (c) ridicule the law.

As he writes in the New Statesman:

When the icing on a cake or handing a leaflet on a bridge or a badge on a lapel can get someone arrested we can safely conclude that this is not a liberty loving state of affairs. Or to put another way, whoever passed this law is bonkers beyond belief/Blunkett. But here is the problem: though many loathe New Labour's attacks on civil liberties so far protests against SOCPA have been lead by a few brave souls who risk arrest by simply refusing to comply with the law. Now all of that has changed with the advent of Mass Lone Demonstrations. If prior approval is what the law demands then prior approval is what we shall seek- en masse. What happens if we turn compliance into defiance and a group of people apply to hold lone demonstrations at the same time? The police get hit with a large amount paperwork, protestors get to legally protest and we embark on a through investigation into the absurdity of the law, heck the police themselves might even feel disgruntled with it.

For an example of what can happen when the police disapprove of a demonstration see here.

 

[detective-boy]

they can it's printed on the letter they sent me to confirm that i could protest word for word...

I am afraid I don't believe you - if it does say that why not quote it (complete with context, not a single sentence)?

And I haven't got the faintest fucking idea why you have concluded I have a persecution complex from my posts on this thread. You're fucking deluded.

 

[detective-boy]

Not assumptions made by those organizing the masslonedemo, it must be said.

No, I'm aware of that. He appears to have been very familiar with the provisions of the law ... unlike some posters on here ...

 

[detective-boy]

For an example of what can happen when the police disapprove of a demonstration see here.

Sounds bizarre.

There IS no provision for a member of the public to accompany a person in custody "as a witness". However, once inside the non-public part of the police station he would be immediately considered to have exceeded any welcome he had when he started filming Ejection as a trespasser, or arrest for obstruction, would be a possible / probable outcome depending on how he reacted to any request to stop filming or leave.

Doesn't sound like they had the best of advice before this little escapade. In fact, doesn't sound like they had any fucking advice at all and seemed to be acting on the basis of a little, erroneous understanding of various law.

 

[winjer]

Doesn't sound like they had the best of advice before this little escapade. In fact, doesn't sound like they had any fucking advice at all and seemed to be acting on the basis of a little, erroneous understanding of various law.

Oh, they've been offered plenty of advice, problem is they never bloody listen, short of beating them about the head with PACE, they couldn't have been warned more.

Doesn't fully explain what happened next though. (assuming this account is approximately accurate)

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

I am afraid I don't believe you - if it does say that why not quote it (complete with context, not a single sentence)?

hmm yet i have the acceptence letter as do all the other protester (as this is a standard letter which states preciecly this...) how do you mr i'm not in the polcie force anymore yet seem to know all about and have been breifed ona peice of legislation which was enacted after i left the police force... seems to me you are blagging this one and have been caught well short...

moreover, why is it that you are make this bold asseration that things are as you state but have yet failed to provide on stroke of evidence pertainign to the act which actually defends your suposition of the legislation?

moreover not only are you going to look foolish but also look like the chancer your really are...

You are bluffing it, and have been called on it...

I wonder how many people you pulled over the years on this very technice... hmmmm

And I haven't got the faintest fucking idea why you have concluded I have a persecution complex from my posts on this thread. You're fucking deluded.

Deluded eh? really...

why is it that you are claiming knowledge and operation information as to how this leglislation would be enacted when you are no longer a copper?

why is it that you are alluding to posters havign said that they would expect the police to prevent them protesting when nothing of the sort was said?

why is it that you when asked for some kind of refference to this alligation you pull up some totlaly unrelated post yet still you are banging on about how wrong the police are by posters on this thread...?

but that's not a persicution complex...

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

No, I'm aware of that. He appears to have been very familiar with the provisions of the law ... unlike some posters on here ...

you for one...

dear...

 

[detective-boy]

hmm < snip yards of bullshit post >

1. You don't have to be a police officer to interpret the law.
2. I still work as a policing services consultant.
3. I have studied law.
4. I styill know and talk to lots of police officers.
5. If a Code of Practice existed I would be able to access it.

And I see that you still don't quote the actual phrase and context from your letter. Which, I suspect, is because you have now realised it DOESN'T say what you alleged it says at all (as another poster has already confirmed).

You really are a fuckwit.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

1. You don't have to be a police officer to interpret the law.
2. I still work as a policing services consultant.
3. I have studied law.
4. I styill know and talk to lots of police officers.
5. If a Code of Practice existed I would be able to access it.

And I see that you still don't quote the actual phrase and context from your letter. Which, I suspect, is because you have now realised it DOESN'T say what you alleged it says at all (as another poster has already confirmed).

You really are a fuckwit.

no love it's cos i went to the cinema and had other important things to do last night namely working rather than show up an explod's ignorance...

btw none of the 5 points raised are relevant unless you have currently study this law and the precidented enaction of it... nice wriggle though... full scan will be posted up shortly (minus my name, address) i do trust that you will be apologising and admitting at that point that you are hopelessly bluffing your way round this... and cease to represent this as another ACAB thread when it clear isn't...


E2A

what you suspect is frankly arse btw, seems that it's what you'd preffer was the case... again seems that you rationaliseation of things is now in question too how many times have you suspected things which are patently false and then sought to enforce that world view on a situation... not really the best position for an ex copper.... or one who now adivses them... it's it cos they look funny ....

when you are ready to post up your evidence then we are all willing to review it...

 

[winjer]

full scan will be posted up shortly (minus my name, address) i do trust that you will be apologising and admitting at that point that you are hopelessly bluffing your way round this...

FFS, give it up, you're completely wrong.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

for DB and his side kick winjer

(3) In giving authorisation, the Commissioner may impose on the persons organising or taking part in the demonstration such conditions specified in the authorisation and relating to the demonstration as in the Commissioner's reasonable opinion are necessary for the purpose of preventing any of the following-

(a) hindrance to any person wishing to enter or leave the Palace of Westminster,
(b) hindrance to the proper operation of Parliament,
(c) serious public disorder,
(d) serious damage to property,
(e) disruption to the life of the community,
(f) a security risk in any part of the designated area,
(g) risk to the safety of members of the public (including any taking part in the demonstration).
(4) The conditions may, in particular, impose requirements as to-

(a) the place where the demonstration may, or may not, be carried on,
(b) the times at which it may be carried on,
(c) the period during which it may be carried on,
(d) the number of persons who may take part in it,
(e) the number and size of banners or placards used,
(f) maximum permissible noise levels.
(5) The authorisation must specify the particulars of the demonstration given in the notice under section 133 pursuant to subsection (4) of that section, with any modifications made necessary by any condition imposed under subsection (3) of this section.

can we read yet can we...

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2005/50015--l.htm#134

the refference as per the act reffered to in the letter you so helpfully posted uphere winjer is the preconditions to the actual conditions which can be imposed as outlined in section 4 of the act....

 

[detective-boy]

for DB and his side kick winjer

Look, you fucking moron.

EVERYTHING you have posted and referred to talks about CONDITIONS being applied. It does NOT refer to the permission being refused.

They are different things.

(Mr Hanson Coles has done well for himself, by the way. Supt now, eh? Used to be one of my sergeants ...)

 

[detective-boy]

Just heard "Mark Thomas - My life in Serious Crime" on Radio 4. Tells the story of his getting permissions, etc.

Very funny (and rather undermines the argument that we are living in a police state ...)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/comedy/markthomas.shtml

Worth 30 minutes of anyone's time!

 

[Dubversion]

Very funny (and rather undermines the argument that we are living in a police state ...)

does it fuck.

they know full well who Thomas is, and thus how they need to cooperate. Don't try and pretend everyone else would have got the same treatment.

 

[detective-boy]

does it fuck.

they know full well who Thomas is, and thus how they need to cooperate. Don't try and pretend everyone else would have got the same treatment.

It provides a good example of how a pleasant approach gets a very different response from someone who tries to force their way into the police station, yes.

I look forward to reading about all the examples you have of how permissions have been refused, draconian conidtions applied, etc. Please post as much detail as possible ...

 

[Dubversion]

And my failure to do so - bearing in mind i've never tried - proves what?

Shall I instead refer to the time I was threatened with an attempted murder charge for no reason whatsoever?

 

[newbie]

Worth 30 minutes of anyone's time!

funnily enough I just mailed a mate using almost those exact words.

 

[dervish]

Shall I instead refer to the time I was threatened with an attempted murder charge for no reason whatsoever?

No reason??

Pah! That copper was in fear for his life! Everyone saw it!

(You missed a good party because of that)

 

[detective-boy]

And my failure to do so - bearing in mind i've never tried - proves what?

That you're just shouting the odds based on prejudices and stereotypes rather than facts ...