TUC Day of Action - 26th March

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by Hugh

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

My main issue is that, in my ever so humble opinion, the aggravated trespass was just an excuse to arrest them. Rather than arresting those who were causing genuine criminal damage.

btw, re your comment
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.

Interesting article.
I do have a few comments. Given that the protest was against Fortnum & Mason, I wouldn't trust them as an unbiased source. However, I don't doubt some wine bottles might have been taken. Afterall, anyone, including thieves, could enter the store - but I don't see any reason to tar 138 people with the same brush.

Aggravated trespass isn't an 'excuse' - it's an arrestable offence. That's a bit like saying the speed limit is just an excuse for issuing fines.

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by Chris

Aggravated trespass isn't an 'excuse' - it's an arrestable offence. That's a bit like saying the speed limit is just an excuse for issuing fines.

I can appropriately relate to that analogy (in the context of the Fortnum & Mason mass arrest) if we're talking about issuing speeding fines on the Indy 500 race circuit (10 mph speed limit), and then only issuing fines to cylists whilst ignoring the speeding race cars.

Re your analogy, that is why they only arrested the trespassers, and not the customers - some were supposed to be there (the customers/speeding race cars) and some weren't (the trespassers/cyclists)....

(and there isn't a speed limit on the Indy 500 circuits, except on non-race days.......)

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Re your analogy, that is why they only arrested the trespassers, and not the customers - some were supposed to be there (the customers/speeding race cars) and some weren't (the trespassers/cyclists)....

(and there isn't a speed limit on the Indy 500 circuits, except on non-race days.......)

In my extension to your analogy, there were no trespassers on the race circuit. I meant they were all racing together in the same circuit, but with the same 10 mph limit imposed and instead of issuing tickets without vehicular bias, decide to go after the cyclists since they are easier to catch.

In the context of your (unintended) interpretation of my analogy and in the context of the Fortnum and Mason mass arrest, you must be implying that the hundreds of vandals who went on a rampage through the streets of London are customers/non-trespassers ?

---------- Post added at 10:48 ---------- Previous post was at 10:44 ----------

I do however agree that such obviious favouritism wouldn't be seen on the Indy 500 speedway, as such complacency is difficult to find outside of the public sector

[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."

[Derek]

Criminal defence lawyers lecturing the police on morality...

I think he would find the motivation was in order to deal with people committing a criminal offence and keeping the peace.

I would imagine most of the arrests during the event were peaceful as the hardcore hooligan element would have resisted arrest far more forcibly. They will be the ones picked up in the coming weeks once the CCTV and FIT footage has been looked through and people identified.

[Sparkle]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-2256729.html

I wonder if the UKUncut protesters will be picketing David Milliband's houses/offices?

Telegraph

In order to minimise the amount of tax he pays, he’s said to have established a company called ‘The Office of David Miliband Limited’ through which he channels his non-Parliamentary earnings. That way, when he receives a fee of £25,000 for a public speaking engagement, as he did recently in Abu Dhabi, he only has to pay 20% in corporation tax, rather than the standard 40% in income tax he’d have to pay as a high-rate taxpayer.

I expect the £75k he gets as non-executive vice-chairman Sunderland Football Club would be taxed at 20% as well....

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Hugh

I wonder if the UKUncut protesters will be picketing David Milliband's houses/offices?

Telegraph I expect the £75k he gets as non-executive vice-chairman Sunderland Football Club would be taxed at 20% as well....

Let's hope so eh? It might focus his mind on all the hypocrisy. He and his brother avoided IHT on their Marxist father's rather large estate IIRC too. Nothing illegal of course but then companies avoiding tax isn't illegal either but you really wouldn't think that when you hear them speak.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...icle484468.ece