[Sparkle]

It seems I'm not alone with this point of view.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/ma...rests-protests

A lawyer at a leading civil liberties firm has expressed fears for the future of direct action protest after the mass arrest of UK Uncut activists during last Saturday's anti-cuts demonstrations in London.

Matt Foot, a criminal defence solicitor at Birnberg Pierce, said the detention of 145 activists during an occupation of luxury food store Fortnum and Mason in Piccadilly was "unprecedented". He has questioned the police's motivation.

After being arrested for aggravated trespass and criminal damage, scores of Uncut campaigners were dispersed to police stations around London as far apart as Harrow, Ilford and Romford and were held for up to 24 hours. The next day, the accusation of criminal damage was dropped but 138 activists were bailed on the charge of aggravated trespass.

He added: "Given the police's public comments about violence on the demonstration, it is extraordinary that the overwhelming numbers of arrests and charges have been for non-violent protesters. One has to question the motivation behind this."

"I was within a couple of feet of a police officer in a fluorescent standard issue jacket who I took to be one of the more senior officers there and I overheard what was being said. Speaking to an officer in black riot gear and a peaked cap, he said: 'It's you that's stopping me from letting them out. What's the problem?'"

Heighton said a second officer in black riot gear and a peaked black cap replied: "We don't want them let out yet. We want them detained and arrested."

"The officer [in the fluorescent jacket] didn't contradict that. He looked baffled by the decision," Heighton said. "You got the sense that he was being overruled but he immediately issued that order to other members of the Met. The whole conversation probably took less than two minutes."