Comments | xavierxalfonso: Towards an armed UK police force

xavierxalfonso

Towards an armed UK police force

Mar 29, 2011 12:23

A group of protesters occupied a swanky department store in London recently. It was peaceful and good-natured. They broke nothing. They cooperated with the police, who nevertheless kettled and arrested them once they left the building. The issue is the deceit used by the police. (This article explains the story and shows some video footage.) *

Three ( Read more... )

Comments 10

egadfly March 30 2011, 06:03:42 UTC

Now that the Liberal Democrats are in power in the UK, this is something I would expect them to address.

George Monbiot thinks they won't.

(And here's Henry Porter's response, offering a more Clegg-friendly view.)

You may also be interested in this account of the protests by a good friend who was there.

bumpycat March 31 2011, 01:44:41 UTC

Is this really that much of an issue?

I certainly agree that policing by consent in the UK is under threat by heavy-handed policing, but in this specific case I can't really sympathise with the protesters. They invaded and disrupted a private business, and were not protesting in the street.

They were tricked out of the building, that much seems clear; but they did commit the crime of trespass, so why shouldn't they be arrested? The police officer in question may have been mistaken, mis-communicating or outright lying, but I wouldn't say "The Police" are lying.

1. Trespass egadfly March 31 2011, 05:40:25 UTC

I see why you say this but I think it is an issue for two reasons.

1. Trespass

English law is often wide open to interpretation. For example, carrying a shoe could be an arrestable offence if a police officer decides it is a weapon. The fact that something is techically a crime does not necessarily mean it is reasonable or in the interests of society for police to arrest you for it.

In 2008, environmental protesters temporarily shut down a power station and caused £30k of damage but were cleared by a jury of criminal damage on the basis that trying to save the planet was a lawful excuse. This article suggests that the test is "did the defendants believe their action was imperative, urgent and reasonable ( ... )

Re: 1. Trespass bumpycat April 1 2011, 01:09:47 UTC

I think the Kingsnorth protest and the jury trial were an example of how things can go wrong. Imagine - if you can get a jury of people who agree with you, you can do pretty much anything. Disrupt a gay march (or invade a LGBT-friendly sex shop) and get a strongly religious jury - you're cleared. An EDL group invades a Muslim bookstore, but has the right people on the jury - and they are cleared. I realise this is exactly the function of juries, but it's not something to celebrate.

IMHO it's important that we don't support any actions by the protesters because we support the motivation of the protesters. We should expect legal behaviour from everyone, including the people we support ( ... )

Thread 10