TUC Day of Action - 26th March

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by Chris

Troublemakers are treated like troublemakers by the Police ... must admit, I'm having difficulty seeing the problem here.

Maybe the thought that there's no exemption from the law

Just out of interest, were they definitely breaking the law ?

I suspect there were but if they were I don't see why the police didn't arrest them when they were in the store if they had nothing to hide?

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Sparkle

Just out of interest, were they definitely breaking the law ?

I suspect there were but if they were I don't see why the police didn't arrest them when they were in the store if they had nothing to hide?

Perhaps the police thought arresting them in the store might have caused more problems than doing so outside. The police have to make decisions like that don't they.

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by Osem

Perhaps the police thought arresting them in the store might have caused more problems than doing so outside. The police have to make decisions like that don't they.

I thought that might have been the case, but I was just wondering if anyone knows for certain? I suspect there was an agreed route for the demo and any deviation would be technically illegal, but it didn't say in the article.
I also don't quite see why they were arrested when they left the building when asked to do so?

The cynic in me says they were arrested just to get their details in the system so they could be watched in future, anti-terror laws anyone?

Derek can probably best answer you that, but you might want to ask him very nicely, as you were a little bit rude and generalizing about his profession earlier

Personally I think it was probably done in that way to minimize the chances of a ruck developing inside the shop.

Aggravated trespass - CPS

Section 68(1) CJPOA formerly provided that a person commits the offence of aggravated trespass if he trespasses on land in the open air and, in relation to any lawful activity which persons are engaging in or are about to engage in on that or adjoining land in the open air 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,
b) of obstructing that activity, or
c) of disrupting that activity

Section 59 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 amended section 68 by removing the words "in the open air".....

......
Any activity falling within conduct described in Section 68(1) is covered. Trespassing on land does not, in itself, amount to the commission of the offence: there must be trespassing on land together with the subsection (1) additional conduct. It seems that mere presence as a trespasser will not be sufficient. The requirement appears to be for conduct over and above the act of trespassing although a person taking up a position which obstructs the lawful activity may be sufficient to make out the offence.
This additional conduct is anything. There is no requirement that the additional conduct should itself be a crime, so activities such as playing a musical instrument or taking a photograph could fall within anything. What limits the scope of anything is the intention that must accompany it: the intention to obstruct, disrupt or deter by intimidating

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Chris

Derek can probably best answer you that, but you might want to ask him very nicely, as you were a little bit rude and generalizing about his profession earlier

He might have to wait. Rumour has it that Derek's hired a coach and is heading down south with some of his mates to visit some protestors, intimidate a few folks and smash some windows. Nothing 'illegal' you understand though.....

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Aggravated trespass - CPS

Throw the ruddy book at the idiots then charge them for police time,wages and court costs.

[Dai]

Originally Posted by Sparkle

Well I don't like it when the police think they can tell jo public whatever they please to suit themselves.

I suspect they wanted to get the protesters out of the store before the arrests started. Much tidier than having them go postal in front of the store's customers.

These were hardly 'jo public' Sparkle.

Originally Posted by Sparkle

Well I don't like it when the police think they can tell jo public whatever they please to suit themselves.
However, there is a reason why I wasn't at the anti-cuts rally, it's because I believe the cuts in the public sector are long overdue.

nor do the cops ,
If the cops told them they were going to be arrested when they left the shop ,do you actually think they would have left ?.personally anything the cops can throw at these two faced hypocritical idiots then the better

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Sparkle

Where were the peaceful protesters "trashing" anything?
Where did it say the protesters were annoyed that the police "dared" to arrest them?

Before.


After.


Now in the after shot I can see some graffiti that wasn't there before and that fits in perfectly with the definition of vandalism I work with.

As for the annoyed protestor bit its the way they are moaning about it being unfair they are arrested and think that shutting down a business for daring to abide by the rules of the tax system is just a big jape.

Originally Posted by Sparkle

They were annoyed that the police outright lied to them, and rightly so.
Unless I'm missing something, you've told 2 lies above, is this a professon-wide trait ?

You did miss something, mostly that a whole bunch of people broke the law and got arrested. What would you rather? That they were arrested outside with minimal fuss and damage or the Police had to chase them all through the store trying to cuff them.

Originally Posted by Sparkle

If I were those protesters I'd be rethinking my strategy, and next time I'd be certain not to take anything the police say for granted, as it's been clearly shown, that their word isn't worth the paper it's written on.

They broke the law, they were dealt with. As the saying goes "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime" I'm sick of all these protestors who think they can break the law with impunity and when they are actually dealt with they bleat and moan about Police brutality, lies, impoliteness etc. etc.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Derek

Before.


After.


Now in the after shot I can see some graffiti that wasn't there before and that fits in perfectly with the definition of vandalism I work with.

As for the annoyed protestor bit its the way they are moaning about it being unfair they are arrested and think that shutting down a business for daring to abide by the rules of the tax system is just a big jape.



You did miss something, mostly that a whole bunch of people broke the law and got arrested. What would you rather? That they were arrested outside with minimal fuss and damage or the Police had to chase them all through the store trying to cuff them.



They broke the law, they were dealt with. As the saying goes "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime" I'm sick of all these protestors who think they can break the law with impunity and when they are actually dealt with they bleat and moan about Police brutality, lies, impoliteness etc. etc.

Excellent post

Strange how the Guardian Media Group aren't on the protestors poster, even though they follow the same tax-avoidance tactics as the other companies......

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Strange how the Guardian Media Group aren't on the protestors poster, even though they follow the same tax-avoidance tactics as the other companies......

Yes, odd that isn't it?? Their offices weren't attacked either...

Also, I wonder how many of the protestors, their families and even their unions avoid tax in some small (or not so small way) and don't think twice about it. That's OK though I suppose........

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by Derek

Now in the after shot I can see some graffiti that wasn't there before and that fits in perfectly with the definition of vandalism I work with.

As for the annoyed protestor bit its the way they are moaning about it being unfair they are arrested and think that shutting down a business for daring to abide by the rules of the tax system is just a big jape.

You appear to be conflating what is going on outside the store, and what is going on inside. Those protesters on the roof are anarchists, and weren't actually arrested as far as I can see. It clearly states in the article that customers in the store weren't affected and continued their business as usual. Additionally, the protestors left the store when asked to do so.
It doesn't get that much better for the police does it?
I bet the reason they were arrested wasn't simply to harrass the protesters and put their details on the system, but to make it look as though the police were out actually arresting the anarchists.
So lets see, 150 peaceful protesters were arrested in this incident.
And, in total 201 demonstrators were arrested during the entire protest ! So, had it not been for this incident to inflate the police arrest figures, they'd look pretty incumbent to have only arrested 51 people despite all the damage that was done on the day.
I think this incident had more to do with their arrest "figures", than any "threat" posed by the peaceful sit in demonstrators.

Now, during the entire March 26th London protest 149 people were charged with an offense.

A staggering 138 of them relate to the sit in protest.

You mean to tell me that out of that entire demo (disregarding the peaceful shop protest), with all the damage, shops smashed, fireworks thrown, ammonia light bulbs and flares, and other objects thrown, that the police only managed to charge 11 people with an offense? Yea that would be embarrasing for them, so I can see why they decided to conduct their "mass arrest". 201 protesters arrested sounds a lot better than 11.

They ain't foolin' me though.

Now, until I see evidence that those vandals outside the store were the ones arrested, then I see no reason to believe that they were.

You did miss something, mostly that a whole bunch of people broke the law and got arrested. What would you rather? That they were arrested outside with minimal fuss and damage or the Police had to chase them all through the store trying to cuff them.

They seemed fairly peaceful to me, the anarchists outside are the ones who don't look too peaceful.

They broke the law, they were dealt with. As the saying goes "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime" I'm sick of all these protestors who think they can break the law with impunity and when they are actually dealt with they bleat and moan about Police brutality, lies, impoliteness etc. etc.

Ah, so two wrongs make a right. If someone is accused of breaking the law, its okay for the police to make up whatever lies that suit? What happened to the days when the police were honest, respectful human beings?
I've also been lied to by the plod (personally) on more than one occasion, and quite frankly I'm sick of their bullsh*t. They are paid to do a job, and telling a convenient pack of lies is no excuse just because it might make their job that bit easier.

In fact, sometimes in my work telling a few lies would save me a bit of work. I still wouldn't do it though.

---------- Post added at 09:04 ---------- Previous post was at 08:59 ----------

Let me just be clear, if the police were equal in their enforcement of the law I wouldn't have a problem with the mass arrest. I just don't see why they went out of their way to deceive a group of peaceful protesters who weren't bothering anyone from what I see, and yet those yobs who caused hundreds of thousands worth of damage weren't arrested.
I have a problem when I see the police not doing the job they're paid to do, and then going after what appear to be the easy targets.

If those "easy targets" were committing a crime (aggravated trespass), what is the issue?

btw, re your comment

It clearly states in the article that customers in the store weren't affected and continued their business as usual

Independent

Fortnum & Mason said the loss of trade during the protest would cost it about £80,000 but physical losses were restricted to the theft of a number of bottles of wine or champagne and slogans which had been daubed on to the exterior of the building.