# FIT Watch @ Climate Camp



## LX365 (Aug 12, 2007)

FIT Watch at Climate Camp

FIT Watch will have an active presence at Climate Camp from Tuesday morning both at Staines Station and the camp itself.

We are also hoping to form a rota of people to stand outside camp trying to prevent FIT from taking photos, and adding to our own database of police photos.

Please help us and get involved – let’s show we will not accept their repressive policing.

We will have a workshop on Tuesday at 4:30pm at the camp to set up a rota. This workshop will also deal with the legalities of dealing with FIT Teams and will discuss how we can resist them in the future.

TAKE ACTION AGAINST THE COPS 
TAKE ACTION AGAINST THE FIT TEAMS 

A call for solidarity outside the next DISARM DSEi public meeting and every time there is a Forward Intelligence Team presence at a meeting or on a protest. 

At the last DISARM DSEi public meeting, as with every other public meeting called by the group since 2002, there were police in attendance from the Metropolitan Police Service’s Forward Intelligence Teams (FIT). 

For anyone who doesn’t know, these are the cops who are paid to harass anarchists (and the Far Right, football fans and Islamic fundamentalists). They follow “known” people on protests and they stand outside public meetings taking photos and writing copious notes. 

The personal is political. Over the last six years I have been harassed, wrongfully arrested, assaulted and driven to a nervous breakdown as a direct result of the treatment I have received from the FIT teams. I know people who will not attend meetings or protests because they can’t deal with the FIT teams. I do not want to watch another person being driven to the edge by their actions. I do not want to hear of one other person being discouraged from joining our actions because of their behaviour. 

Once and for all we need to admit they are a problem. We’ve spent too long ignoring them, pretending they don’t have an impact on us because of a belief that once they know they’re having an effect, they will become more powerful. However they know they’re having an effect and this is why they’re persisting. They get away with what they do because we let them. And whilst we continue to ignore their presence, we will never tackle the problem. 

I feel a lot stronger since I have admitted this vulnerability and I now feel a pressing desire to reclaim their power. We have seen their behaviour fuck up our friends. We have seen the very real impact their presence has had on our movement. Isn’t it time we attacked this disease,this cancer which has afflicted us for years? 

If we were being systematically tortured by the State, we would protest. Mental abuse is just as important and it is vital to the strength of our actions that we challenge this. This call to action and discourse is an attempt to kick start that challenge. 

Over the last seven years, everyone who has attended a public (state perceived) anarchist meeting in London will have had their details recorded. This has both enabled the police to build up profiles of us over the years and has also made many newcomers feel uncomfortable about joining our meetings. Many people carry on walking when they see thecops. 

It is argued that our meetings are already infiltrated and it is therefore a distraction to focus on the police outside. However the psychological effect of having them outside our meetings is damaging; damaging to both the experienced activists who feel harassment at their presence and to the people who do not even step inside the meeting because they don’t want their photograph taken. 

The cops are so comfortable outside our meetings they think they don’t need back up. Four cops and a photographer feel safe outside our meetings. We have become too accepting of our own repression and this must change. We hold large demonstrations on behalf of others, on behalf of comrades in foreign jails. We must extend this solidarity to ourselves. We need to start dismantling the chains of our own oppression. 

At the last Disarm DSEi public meeting, two people were arrested after trying to hold up placards whilst the cops were filming. Many people attending the meeting were inspired by the action and many commented they were happy to have been able to attend without having their photographs taken. 

This proposal calls for solidarity demos outside every public meeting where there is likely to be a FIT presence. Every time the FIT team harass us, we must react. We must show them we will no longer tolerate this treatment. We must rebuild solidarity amongst groups. We may not want to get involved in the organising of every campaign, but we can spare half an hour to stand outside a meeting in solidarity with those in attendance. If we can spread this level of solidarity throughout the different groups currently experiencing harassment from FIT teams, then we are in a place to build a stronger, more effective, community. 

Having a few persistent people with banners is a good start. However we should be aiming to get to the stage where it is prohibitively expensive for them to police our public meetings. We need to get to the stage that when they try to follow us through our demonstrations, people automatically link arms and prevent them from doing so. We are safer to the State if we stay as disparate groups. We are at our most powerful when we work in solidarity with each other. 

This proposal can only start to work if we act in solidarity with each other. What are you going to do? 

Further Action: This proposal is only meant to be a starting point. If there are enough people interested, it’d be good to have a cross group meeting to discuss strategies et cetera. This proposal is a personal response, it’d be good if different groups wanted to come together and write a joint proposal. For further information, networking, ideas etc email defycops(at)yahoo.co.uk 

Join the email list by sending a blank email to   fitwatch-subscribe@lists.riseup.net 

A blog has been set up with the aim of becoming a resource for people trying to resist the FIT teams. People are invited to add their experiences, ideas, photographs, information – www.fitwatch.blogspot.com. Anyone can add comments to the blog, but anyone can be added as an author who wishes to contribute regularly.


----------



## chymaera (Aug 12, 2007)

LX365 said:
			
		

> For anyone who doesn’t know, these are the cops who are paid to harass anarchists (and the Far Right, football fans and Islamic fundamentalists). They follow “known” people on protests and they stand outside public meetings taking photos and writing copious notes.



I don't see the problem. It isn't the one's you can see I would worry about.
Well tried and proven tactic used by magicians for centuries, whilst people watch the obvious they don't see how the trick is done.


----------



## Mr Smin (Aug 13, 2007)

chymaera said:
			
		

> I don't see the problem. It isn't the one's you can see I would worry about.



maybe re-read the original post - author claims a measurable harm done by the ones they could see.


----------



## chymaera (Aug 13, 2007)

Mr Smin said:
			
		

> maybe re-read the original post - author claims a measurable harm done by the ones they could see.




What do career protestors expect? The government to do nothing?


----------



## Fruitloop (Aug 13, 2007)

Their democratic right to protest to be safeguarded in this supposedly free society?


----------



## Fruitloop (Aug 13, 2007)

> Alf Pereira, 52, from nearby Harmondsworth, said yesterday: "I believe my home may be compulsorily purchased under the runway plans and I support the camp 100%.
> 
> "I lost my daughter, aged one and a half, to bronchial problems 12 years ago and I blame it on the pollution levels.
> 
> "Every time an aircraft leaves Heathrow it leaves something toxic behind."



Damn these professional troublemakers! Lock'em all up eh?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 13, 2007)

chymaera said:
			
		

> What do career protestors expect? The government to do nothing?



What do you expect people to do?

Allow the cops to do stop them doing anyhting at all?


----------



## chymaera (Aug 13, 2007)

Kaka Tim said:
			
		

> What do you expect people to do?
> 
> Allow the cops to do stop them doing anyhting at all?




Whatever they decide to do is personal choice. If protesters are not prepared to go to jail or possibly die for their cause, choose a different hobby.


----------



## Fruitloop (Aug 13, 2007)

Are you advocating green terrorism then?


----------



## chymaera (Aug 13, 2007)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Are you advocating green terrorism then?



Not in the slightest. I just get hacked of with people who have track record of some nasty people in their midst who will resort to terrorist type tactics, crying and wringing their hands when the state puts in place protection measures.


----------



## Fruitloop (Aug 13, 2007)

I can't tally this with your statement that "If protesters are not prepared to go to jail or possibly die for their cause, choose a different hobby". Is it OK for the state to use lethal violence, but not for individual citizens to air their views? Whole societies may be simply washed away be rising sea-levels, and those who wish to state their opposition to this publicly should be locked up or killed? People whose lives have been affected by pollution etc should just stay at home and shut up?


----------



## chymaera (Aug 13, 2007)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Is it OK for the state to use lethal violence, but not for individual citizens to air their views?



It is sometimes necessary for the state to use lethal violence, and no-one is being stopped from airing a point of view.
The state and the police do not get things all their own way:-
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldjudgmt/jd131206/lapor-1.htm


----------



## Fruitloop (Aug 13, 2007)

When is it necessary for the state to use lethal violence? Isn't extra-judicial violence the hallmark of a totalitarian state?


----------



## chymaera (Aug 13, 2007)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> When is it necessary for the state to use lethal violence? ?




To prevent honest citizens from getting killed, if someone runs amok with a firearm, or is about to set of a bomb.


----------



## LX365 (Aug 13, 2007)

For me it's not about what I'm prepared to accept or expect the State to do.  I'm not interested in whether the police are allowed to do what they're doing.

However I know the psychological effect they have had over the years.  I have had a breakdown and I've witnessed friends of mine have breakdowns as a direct result of the FIT Teams.  I have other friends who'll no longer go to a meeting or a demo in London because of them.

It isn't about surveillence, it's about intimidation and we need to stand up to this repression.  We need to aim to make it impossible for them to treat us the way they do, not because the State has a right to do this or not, but because we will not accept their behaviour any longer.


----------



## Fruitloop (Aug 13, 2007)

The police were recently outed quite seriously when one of them left a microphone on at an AR demonstration; one of them refered to a policy to 'persecute' the head of a perfectly legitimate organisation and their intention to make arrests in advance of the protest, regardless of the behaviour of the protestors. If the aim were indeed to permit lawful expression of political views whilst protecting the public this would be completely unnecessary, but obviously this is not the case; the purpose is instead to discourage anyone from acting in a way inimical to the interests of government and business (which are largely co-terminous anyway).


----------



## chymaera (Aug 13, 2007)

LX365 said:
			
		

> It isn't about surveillence, it's about intimidation and we need to stand up to this repression.  We need to aim to make it impossible for them to treat us the way they do, not because the State has a right to do this or not, but because we will not accept their behaviour any longer.



Well go right ahead, but if you expect widespread public support you are out of luck. (Especially if protestors continue to look like the ones being shown on TV at the moment.)


----------



## Fruitloop (Aug 13, 2007)

One of the major functions of the corporate media is of course to tell people what the general public thinks, and in the manner of all self-fulfilling prophecies many people are happy to go along with what they perceive to be the consensus view. However on many issues, of which climate change is only one, it is clear that the public's view is significantly in advance of both the govt and the corporate media - even more so when they are personally affected like the gentleman I quoted above.


----------



## TAE (Aug 13, 2007)

chymaera said:
			
		

> Whatever they decide to do is personal choice. If protesters are not prepared to go to jail or possibly die for their cause, choose a different hobby.


You should move to the GDR. You'd like it there. Oh wait, the people there got fed up too and challened the police! Oh well.


----------



## Fruitloop (Aug 13, 2007)

> Characteristics of an authoritarian polyarchy would include a general preference for spatial closure, spread of gated institutions and exclusion from de facto public spaces, threat of harassment and extensive risks associated with political activism outside the sphere of officially accepted dissent, citizen accountability to the state, unilateral statist project usually traceable to the executive and even to single leaders (PM, President or home minister), abrogation of basic liberties or their de facto restriction by generic or vague or arbitrary restrictions (intolerance for and violent suppression of unlicensed protests or gatherings, state powers to ban assemblies of “gangs” or in areas with “anti-social behaviour” problems, corralling or mass arrests often in advance of protests, various regimes of indefinite and undefined and arbitrary and extrajudicial detention), constant risk of contact with state or parastate (pseudoprivate, regulatory) micropolitical infrastructure in everyday life (ID checks, stop and search, entry regulation, CCTV in turnstiles), endemic surveillance, difficulty of avoiding contact with repressive agents if one wishes to, significant political imprisonment (for acts such as unauthorized protests, incitement, harassment of protest targets, entering offlimits areas) sometimes amounting to criminalization of entire movements and ideologies (closure or banning of political groups such as SHAC, London Animal Action, al-Muhajiroun), cruel and inhuman treatment implicitly or explicitly endorsed, causing offence to insiders/conformists criminalized (as harassment, moral deviance, anti-sociality), minor “offences” potentially treated as major and in some cases leading to potentially life-ruining repressive responses (long imprisonments, permanent regimes of regulation under ASBOs and the like, deportation), thoroughgoing police impunity (difficulty of bringing cases against police, significant risk of persecution of complainants, compensation reduced to minimal levels, extended “powers” of police to arrest, stop, search, question, interrogate and take samples more-or-less at whim).



from A. Robinson _Social Logic of the State_


----------



## chymaera (Aug 13, 2007)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> One of the major functions of the corporate media is of course to tell people what the general public thinks, and in the manner of all self-fulfilling prophecies many people are happy to go along with what they perceive to be the consensus view.



This is somewhat undermined since the advent of the internet.


----------



## jiggajagga (Aug 13, 2007)

Interesting post this. I had never heard of FIT before now but I was not surprised...why not??

I wish all protestors well and success but I fear the only time you will get the business world and the state on your side is when a cataclysmic event occurs that hits them personally where it hurts. I suppose the Thames barrier being breached comes to mind.

Sadly, much of the human race is too greedy and selfish to care about anything but themselves, but I salute you legends of the future!


----------



## Buds and Spawn (Aug 13, 2007)

chymaera said:
			
		

> Not in the slightest. I just get hacked of with people who have track record of some nasty people in their midst who will resort to terrorist type tactics, crying and wringing their hands when the state puts in place protection measures.


Because the police have no track record of nasty people in their midst of course...

And what terrorist type tactics are you referring to? All those well-known bombings at road protests and street parties...? I don't know of any... think you're living in fantasy land.


----------



## chymaera (Aug 13, 2007)

jiggajagga said:
			
		

> Interesting post this. I had never heard of FIT before now but I was not surprised...why not??



There has been such state sponsored tactics since Adam was a lad. Those of us of a "certain age" remember the "spooks" infiltrating those "subversive anarchist" folk clubs we used to go to back in the 1960s. Then there was the much denied black list of people who could not get employment because of their political views.


----------



## jiggajagga (Aug 13, 2007)

chymaera said:
			
		

> There has been such state sponsored tactics since Adam was a lad. Those of us of a "certain age" remember the "spooks" infiltrating those "subversive anarchist" folk clubs we used to go to back in the 1960s. Then there was the much denied black list of people who could not get employment because of their political views.



But I thought we lived in a 'Green and pleasant land' mate?


----------



## chymaera (Aug 13, 2007)

Buds and Spawn said:
			
		

> And what terrorist type tactics are you referring to?



Harrassing and threatening people in their own home just because of where they work, abusing people on their way into work, sometimes for years, grave robbing.


----------



## llantwit (Aug 13, 2007)

chymaera said:
			
		

> There has been such state sponsored tactics since Adam was a lad. Those of us of a "certain age" remember the "spooks" infiltrating those "subversive anarchist" folk clubs we used to go to back in the 1960s. Then there was the much denied black list of people who could not get employment because of their political views.


What? Are you saying FIT teams don't exist, and don't actuallly harrass protestors?


----------



## llantwit (Aug 13, 2007)

chymaera said:
			
		

> Harrassing and threatening people in their own home just because of where they work, abusing people on their way into work, sometimes for years...


Sounds like the FIT, apart from the grave robbing bit, like.


----------



## Fruitloop (Aug 13, 2007)

Shouting at people is terrorism now?


----------



## Buds and Spawn (Aug 13, 2007)

chymaera said:
			
		

> Harrassing and threatening people in their own home just because of where they work, abusing people on their way into work, sometimes for years, grave robbing.


You seem to be referring to animal rights protestors and while many peeps act for both animal rights and environmental issues the overall attitude is quite different. Most direct action in defence of the environment has been 'non-violent to life'. Fact.


----------



## chymaera (Aug 13, 2007)

jiggajagga said:
			
		

> But I thought we lived in a 'Green and pleasant land' mate?



Yeah right. At least I can't think of any of the current crop of protestors being found dead having "commited suicide" by hanging, dressed in strange clothing and surrounded by kiddy porn, or "murdered by a burglar".


----------



## chymaera (Aug 13, 2007)

Buds and Spawn said:
			
		

> You seem to be referring to animal rights protestors and while many peeps act for both animal rights and environmental issues the overall attitude is quite different. Most direct action in defence of the environment has been 'non-violent to life'. Fact.




There are a minority of very nasty bastards in any protest movement, that bring the movement into disrepute. Which is why if you are going to protest about something make damned sure you have not got any of them in your membership.


----------



## Buds and Spawn (Aug 13, 2007)

chymaera said:
			
		

> Harrassing and threatening people in their own home just because of where they work, abusing people on their way into work, sometimes for years, grave robbing.


I should add that the cops have visited my home and harrassed me (and assaulted me) at protests etc.. for years. You won't find me crying about it or wringing my hands. Don't get mad get even


----------



## untethered (Aug 13, 2007)

You have groups of people that are both openly and covertly organising criminal activity. I think the police would be quite remiss not to keep a very close eye on them.

I support the right to protest. This is essentially a public activity. If you're not prepared to be public about it, don't do it.


----------



## Buds and Spawn (Aug 13, 2007)

chymaera said:
			
		

> There are a minority of very nasty bastards in any protest movement, that bring the movement into disrepute. Which is why if you are going to protest about something make damned sure you have not got any of them in your membership.


Membership is not a valid concept in a disorganisation. Every barrel will have it's rotten apples - in the case of protest most of the ones I've come across are c/o of the state.


----------



## laptop (Aug 13, 2007)

chymaera said:
			
		

> I don't see the problem.


----------



## Buds and Spawn (Aug 13, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> You have groups of people that are both openly and covertly organising criminal activity. I think the police would be quite remiss not to keep a very close eye on them.
> 
> I support the right to protest. This is essentially a public activity. If you're not prepared to be public about it, don't do it.


Do the police FIT teams hang around outside corporate boardrooms - listening in to see what part of our ecosystem or which tribe will be plundered next? What about the FIT team keeping a close eye on the loonie politicians and their generals planning on which country to bomb to oblivion so we can grab some fossil fuel. Bit of a giveaway...


----------



## untethered (Aug 13, 2007)

Buds and Spawn said:
			
		

> Do the police FIT teams hang around outside corporate boardrooms - listening in to see what part of our ecosystem or which tribe will be plundered next? What about the FIT team keeping a close eye on the loonie politicians and their generals planning on which country to bomb to oblivion so we can grab some fossil fuel. Bit of a giveaway...



No, because the police are there to uphold the law, not your particular political viewpoint.


----------



## Buds and Spawn (Aug 13, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> No, because the police are there to uphold the law, not your particular political viewpoint.


..and the law is not political?


----------



## untethered (Aug 13, 2007)

Buds and Spawn said:
			
		

> ..and the law is not political?



Oh crumbs, that's right. The police are the lackeys of the state.

You'd better phone them and tell them. I'm sure they'll be out policing boardrooms and cabinet meetings just to make sure they comply with your expectations.


----------



## Buds and Spawn (Aug 13, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> Oh crumbs, that's right. The police are the lackeys of the state.
> 
> You'd better phone them and tell them. I'm sure they'll be out policing boardrooms and cabinet meetings just to make sure they comply with your expectations.


Well they are - quite clearly. I don't expect them to keep tabs on the real criminals - so my expectations are fine thanks.


----------



## Fruitloop (Aug 13, 2007)

What kind of protest would be considered acceptable in the view of the political establishment? Only those that can by their nature be completely ignored, ones that come pre-emasculated, ones that pose no threat to business as usual. As soon as they step outside these 'acceptable' limits then they are crushed with all the resources at the state's disposal.


----------



## untethered (Aug 13, 2007)

Buds and Spawn said:
			
		

> Well they are - quite clearly. I don't expect them to keep tabs on the real criminals - so my expectations are fine thanks.



Ah yes, the "real criminals". You're one of those chaps on demos that can't distinguish between the law as it is and the law as you'd like it to be.

Do you think the police _should _take action against any group they feel is doing the wrong thing, regardless of the law?


----------



## Buds and Spawn (Aug 13, 2007)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> What kind of protest would be considered acceptable in the view of the political establishment? Only those that can by their nature be completely ignored, ones that come pre-emasculated, ones that pose no threat to business as usual. As soon as they step outside these 'acceptable' limits then they are crushed with all the resources at the state's disposal.


Nicely put.


----------



## Buds and Spawn (Aug 13, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> Ah yes, the "real criminals". You're one of those chaps on demos that can't distinguish between the law as it is and the law as you'd like it to be.
> 
> Do you think the police _should _take action against any group they feel is doing the wrong thing, regardless of the law?


Incorrect. I know exactly how the law works because I've had experience of it. I wouldn't expect anything else from our political system. So 'distinguishing' isn't a problem for me either, but thanks for asking 'chap'.

I'm off - it's getting scary here.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 13, 2007)

jiggajagga said:
			
		

> Interesting post this. I had never heard of FIT before now but I was not surprised...why not??


Before you get too far with the impression that they are some form of secret body ...

The Forward Intelligence Teams are part of the Public Order Command structure.  The Met originally, but most forces now, have a central unit tasked with planning for known or predictable public demonstrations / disorder.  These events include ceremonials, football and other sports events, demonstrations, protests and everything else likely to require resources other than a local police presence.  

In order to facilitate lawful protest and minimise criminal activity within otherwise lawful protests (and there is a long history of criminals hiding within otherwise lawful groups in all sorts of contexts) the police have moved towards an "intelligence-led" approach, with a view to ensuring that higher levels of policing are directed only at times / places / groups known to present a higher threat of unlawful action (the flip side being that times / places / groups not known to present a higher threat receive a lower level of policing, such as is seen in many situations every day.

The FIT teams are a necessary part of that intelligence-led approach.  Where planning meetings are held by protestors then the police will use the lawful means available to them to gather intelligence, including trying to identify those involved (as there is a very strong correlation between serious unlawful protest / other activity and those with previous convictions for such offences) and to work out what is going to happen on the day(s).  Intelligence is also gathered from open sources such as posters, leaflets, papers, media coverage and, er, the internet (* Waves to CO11 Public Order Intelligence Unit *).

They are not "supercops".  They are ordinary officers seconded to the units from other duties.  They have no special powers - they are bound by the restrictions of RIPA, etc.  They are not paid any differently from other officers of similar rank, grade and service.

Anyone who considers that the activities of the FIT team officers is excessive or unlawful is able to complain just as anyone can about any individual officer.  Likewise if the person believes they have been unlawfully targetted by the organisation.  The civil law is available to anyone who claims to have suffered harm as a result of their activity.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2007)

"In order to facilitate lawful protest"  - love it!


----------



## untethered (Aug 13, 2007)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> What kind of protest would be considered acceptable in the view of the political establishment? Only those that can by their nature be completely ignored, ones that come pre-emasculated, ones that pose no threat to business as usual. As soon as they step outside these 'acceptable' limits then they are crushed with all the resources at the state's disposal.



Boo hoo! You crushed my protest with all the resources at the state's disposal.

Take the big Stop the War march. Was that "crushed"? No. Was it considered "acceptable"? Not politically, but legally there was nothing that could be done about it.


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Aug 13, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> Before you get too far with the impression that they are some form of secret body ...
> 
> The Forward Intelligence Teams are part of the Public Order Command structure.  The Met originally, but most forces now, have a central unit tasked with planning for known or predictable public demonstrations / disorder.  These events include ceremonials, football and other sports events, demonstrations, protests and everything else likely to require resources other than a local police presence.
> 
> ...



didn't know Enid Blyton was posting on these boards!  Afternoon All!


----------



## untethered (Aug 13, 2007)

Larry O'Hara said:
			
		

> didn't know Enid Blyton was posting on these boards!  Afternoon All!



Her books are better than yours.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 13, 2007)

Buds and Spawn said:
			
		

> Do the police FIT teams hang around outside corporate boardrooms - listening in to see what part of our ecosystem or which tribe will be plundered next?


The FIT teams don't ... but the Intelligence Unit of the various forces and agencies involved in dealing with corporate fraud do (though they could do with doing it a bit more, if you ask me).


----------



## Fruitloop (Aug 13, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> Boo hoo! You crushed my protest with all the resources at the state's disposal.
> 
> Take the big Stop the War march. Was that "crushed"? No. Was it considered "acceptable"? Not politically, but legally there was nothing that could be done about it.



Opposition to the war was indeed politically acceptable, even for members of parliament. The Stop the War march was much derided in the popular media, however it was allowed to take place as 1) to have prevented it would have let the illiberal cat out of the bag and 2) it held no hope of achieving anything. Pretty much exactly what I said in other words.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2007)

No they don't.


----------



## untethered (Aug 13, 2007)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Opposition to the war was indeed politically acceptable, even for members of parliament.



Opposition to climate change is also politically acceptable, too. Hadn't you noticed?




			
				Fruitloop said:
			
		

> The Stop the War march was much derided in the popular media, however it was allowed to take place as 1) to have prevented it would have let the illiberal cat out of the bag and



So if it had been 5000 people, or 50, doing exactly the same thing, do you think the state would have "crushed" it?




			
				Fruitloop said:
			
		

> 2) it held no hope of achieving anything. Pretty much exactly what I said in other words.



If you think the political activism against the war(s) haven't achieved anything, what hope is there for climate change. Or indeed, anything?

The real issue here is about whether campaigns are ultimately trying to participate in the democratic process or bypass it.


----------



## Fruitloop (Aug 13, 2007)

In a way you are right - the activity of the state is to claim for itself all political territory, and to de-legitimise any political activity that isn't explicitly sanctioned. This way the state can neutralise any protest or organisation that actually threatens elite or business interests, even if the target has never actually broken any specific laws.


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Aug 13, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> Her books are better than yours.



to make that judgement, you would have to literate


----------



## untethered (Aug 13, 2007)

Larry O'Hara said:
			
		

> to make that judgement, you would have to literate



Don't worry, if I get stuck on any big words I'll PM you.


----------



## chymaera (Aug 13, 2007)

Buds and Spawn said:
			
		

> Membership is not a valid concept in a disorganisation.




That is one of the reasons trouble is expected from the protestors. (The unspecified direct action "promised" by them at the end of the week.)


----------



## editor (Aug 13, 2007)

chymaera said:
			
		

> That is one of the reasons trouble is expected from the protestors.


Define "trouble".


----------



## chymaera (Aug 13, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> Define "trouble".



Unspecified direct action. (Apparently there is a reference to this on Telegraph website but I can't access it.)


----------



## HackneyE9 (Aug 13, 2007)

chymaera said:
			
		

> Unspecified direct action. (Apparently there is a reference to this on Telegraph website but I can't access it.)



The Telegraph.

Case closed, game over.


----------



## TAE (Aug 13, 2007)

This day and age, sitting down on a road is considered terrorism. Or something.


----------



## untethered (Aug 13, 2007)

TAE said:
			
		

> This day and age, sitting down on a road is considered terrorism. Or something.



It's considered being a bally nuisance.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2007)

or bally terrorism. Uppity indians probably.


----------



## untethered (Aug 13, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> or bally terrorism. Uppity indians probably.



Hopefully it will be a British protest in the best traditions.


----------



## chymaera (Aug 13, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> or bally terrorism. Uppity indians probably.



I don't know about that, but there appears to be a number on Rastafarians on the site.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> Hopefully it will be a British protest in the best traditions.



Amritsar syle eh?


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Aug 13, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> Hopefully it will be a British protest in the best traditions.



yeah that great one of marching to a to b and going home again and being completely ignored.


----------



## editor (Aug 13, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> It's considered being a bally nuisance.


Curse those bally Suffragettes causing inconveniences for the chaps, eh? In fact, maybe all forms of protest should be outlawed now so that no one ever has to suffer any kind of inconvenience (unless it's being dished out by the state or big corporations, of course).


----------



## untethered (Aug 13, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> Curse those bally Suffragettes causing inconveniences for the chaps, eh? In fact, maybe all forms of protest should be outlawed now so that no one ever has to suffer any kind of inconvenience (unless it's being dished out by the state or big corporations, of course).



Not at all. You just need to know where the line is drawn, that's all.

I'm right behind the climate camp just as long as they keep it legal and decent.


----------



## chymaera (Aug 13, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> I'm right behind the climate camp just as long as they keep it legal and decent.




They have fallen at the first hurdle there then. They have illegally occupied private land.


----------



## untethered (Aug 13, 2007)

chymaera said:
			
		

> They have fallen at the first hurdle there then. They have illegally occupied private land.



Yes, I'm a bit concerned about that. Does anyone know why they didn't just get permission or rent some land? It would have saved a lot of bother.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 13, 2007)

Ridiculous really. Honestly, I don't see why we don't just go Amritsar on the ne'er-do-wells, it would teach them who's boss.


----------



## untethered (Aug 13, 2007)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> Ridiculous really. Honestly, I don't see why we don't just go Amritsar on the ne'er-do-wells, it would teach them who's boss.



Don't you think climate change matters?


----------



## cantsin (Aug 13, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> Not at all. You just need to know where the line is drawn, that's all.
> 
> I'm right behind the climate camp just as long as they keep it legal and decent.




what is going on on these boards ? i dont come here often , but when did clowns  like this one / Chymera / Detective boy get to spout this kind of crap without anyone batting an eyelid ? 

"Legal and decent" ????????????????????


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2007)

cantsin said:
			
		

> what is going on on these boards ? i dont come here often , but when clowns  like this one / Chymera / Detective Pig boy get to spout this kind of crap without anyone batting an eyelid ?
> 
> "Legal and decent" ????????????????????



Attack him/them then monty


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Aug 13, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> Yes, I'm a bit concerned about that. Does anyone know why they didn't just get permission or rent some land? It would have saved a lot of bother.



The land they occupied is apparently that going to be used for the airport expansion they protest against--therefore entirely appropriate.


----------



## chymaera (Aug 13, 2007)

cantsin said:
			
		

> "Legal and decent" ????????????????????



Peaceful protest has a long an honourable history in Britain, as soon as protesters break the law they lose support from the general public.
Whilst millions of ordinary people fill up cheap charter flights to get two weeks cheap holiday abroad the demand for more flights will not stop.
Lobbying government to put the same tax on jet fuel as there is on petrol would be somewhat more sensible than a load of:-"crusties, dole scroungers and the great unwashed." camping in a field. (Those descriptions are from other forums by the way.)


----------



## editor (Aug 13, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> Yes, I'm a bit concerned about that. Does anyone know why they didn't just get permission or rent some land?


Oh yes. That would work.

Protesters: "Hi. We'd like to hire some land for a protest"
Landowner: "Sorry, the police have told me not to help you in any way at all"
Protesters: "OK, We'll just not bother and give up then"


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2007)

chymaera said:
			
		

> Peaceful protest has a long an honourable history in Britain, as soon as protesters break the law they lose support from the general public.



No they don't, do you know any UK history?


----------



## untethered (Aug 13, 2007)

Larry O'Hara said:
			
		

> The land they occupied is apparently that going to be used for the airport expansion they protest against--therefore entirely appropriate.



I suppose they'll be doing less damage than an expanded airport, but it's still hardly the right way to be going about things.

Nonetheless, I'm considering popping in and seeing what it's all about. More conservatives should get involved with these things if we're to have a future at all.


----------



## editor (Aug 13, 2007)

chymaera said:
			
		

> Lobbying government to put the same tax on jet fuel as there is on petrol would be somewhat more sensible than a load of:-"crusties, dole scroungers and the great unwashed." camping in a field. (Those descriptions are from other forums by the way.)


Which forums are these please?

And why do you keep quoting the irrelevant witterings of these unnamed people? Is it because you agree with the sentiments?


----------



## untethered (Aug 13, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> Oh yes. That would work.
> 
> Protesters: "Hi. We'd like to hire some land for a protest"
> Landowner: "Sorry, the police have told me not to help you in any way at all"
> Protesters: "OK, We'll just not bother and give up then"



Someone must know a friendly landowner. It really isn't that hard.


----------



## editor (Aug 13, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> Someone must know a friendly landowner. It really isn't that hard.


You're living in cloud cuckoo land, chum.


----------



## untethered (Aug 13, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> You're living in cloud cuckoo land, chum.



I think you are if you believe that no landowner could be sympathetic to such a thing. I'm sure a great deal are. In fact, I know they are. Just not anyone locally that I know of.


----------



## chymaera (Aug 13, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> Which forums are these please?
> 
> And why do you keep quoting the irrelevant witterings of these unnamed people? Is it because you agree with the sentiments?




Looking at the News items from the encampment the protestors appear to, in the main, fit the stereotypes, with the usual American spokespersons just to annoy the general public even more.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2007)

"crusties, dole scroungers and the great unwashed."

you mean?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 13, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> Don't you think climate change matters?


You're not funny you know.


----------



## chymaera (Aug 13, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> "crusties, dole scroungers and the great unwashed."
> 
> you mean?



Yes. (Unless the TV news gatherers are doing closeup of them deliberately to make it look as if they are the only people there.)


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2007)

Maybe they are. Maybe they're not. Interesting how they know their income situation - was that from the news or the other site?


----------



## editor (Aug 13, 2007)

chymaera said:
			
		

> Yes. (Unless the TV news gatherers are doing closeup of them deliberately to make it look as if they are the only people there.)


Gosh! As if the media would ever try to edit their footage to fit an agenda or present a more lively piece! Who'd have thought such a thing!

Oh and exactly how do you know that they are:
(a) unwashed and 
(b) dole scroungers?

Or is that just your tired prejudices shining through?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 13, 2007)

I'd report them all to the coppers as drug fiends personally - you can't be too careful.


----------



## untethered (Aug 13, 2007)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> I'd report them all to the coppers as drug fiends personally - you can't be too careful.



It's precisely because of these kinds of stereotypes that a broader section of society needs to get involved. Environmental concern isn't confined to just young people and "lefties".


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> It's precisely because of these kinds of stereotypes that a broader section of society needs to get involved. Environmental concern isn't confined to just young people and "lefties".



But bosses (pretend or otherwise) are more of a practical concern than young people and "lefties". What *are* you doing?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 13, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> It's precisely because of these kinds of stereotypes that a broader section of society needs to get involved. Environmental concern isn't confined to just young people and "lefties".


As someone who is consistently advocating that the state and police have complete control over any protest, you know, you're giving away your position a little bit.


----------



## yield (Aug 13, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> It's precisely because of these kinds of stereotypes that a broader section of society needs to get involved. Environmental concern isn't confined to just young people and "lefties".



It isn't just young people and "lefties".

Indy 27 July 2007 

_"If you're a member of the National Trust, the RSPB, the Woodland Trust or Friends of the Earth, then you could be banned from Britain's biggest airport"._


----------



## untethered (Aug 13, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> What *are* you doing?



Campaigning for better public transport. Cleaner and better-ordered streets. Giving people pride in their neighbourhoods, bringing back decent and civilised values. Helping Eurosceptic candidates get elected. Trying not to make things worse by not driving myself or leading an excessively consumptive lifestyle.

The thing is, we can all do our bit, whether we're full-time protest enthusiasts or just normal, ordinary working people.

What are _you _doing?


----------



## untethered (Aug 13, 2007)

yield said:
			
		

> _"If you're a member of the National Trust, the RSPB, the Woodland Trust or Friends of the Earth, then you could be banned from Britain's biggest airport"._



Except the court declined to grant the injunction against those groups, didn't it?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> Campaigning for better public transport. Cleaner and better-ordered streets. Giving people pride in their neighbourhoods, bringing back decent and civilised values. Helping Eurosceptic candidates get elected. Trying not to make things worse by not driving myself or leading an excessively consumptive lifestyle.
> 
> The thing is, we can all do our bit, whether we're full-time protest enthusiasts or just normal, ordinary working people.
> 
> What are _you _doing?



You mean voting UKIP/BNP? How about your company? What's the set up there?


----------



## yield (Aug 13, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> Except the court declined to grant the injunction against those groups, didn't it?



Yes, BAA took out an injunction against the National Trust, the RSPB, the Woodland Trust and Friends of the Earth. Not exactly teenagers and lefties is it?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 13, 2007)

Just as an aside, but a good "danger word" for me is "pride".

"Decent" goes without saying - that's too easy.


----------



## untethered (Aug 13, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> You mean voting UKIP/BNP?



I certainly wouldn't lift a finger to help the BNP. I've got no time for racist politics.




			
				butchersapron said:
			
		

> How about your company? What's the set up there?



It's office-based so not much scope for heavy polluting there. Business travel tends to be by train. People do fly, but only where necessary.


----------



## untethered (Aug 13, 2007)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> Just as an aside, but a good "danger word" for me is "pride".



What, like Gay Pride?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> I certainly wouldn't lift a finger to help the BNP. I've got no time for racist politics.
> 
> 
> 
> It's office-based so not much scope for heavy polluting there. Business travel tends to be by train. People do fly, but only where necessary.



Only where necessary - what sort of cop-out is that. Economics comes first. Isn't that the same attitude that got us into this shit in the first place?

Necessary as defined by who btw? Not me, not the people affected?. Why do you have the single say on my/our enviroment?

Only where necessary - is there a more pathetic get out clause?


----------



## untethered (Aug 14, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Only where necessary - what sort of cop-out is that. Economics comes first. Isn't that the same attitude that got us into this shit in the first place?
> 
> Necessary as defined by who btw? Not me, not the people affected?. Why do you have the single say on my/our enviroment?
> 
> Only where necessary - is there a more pathetic get out clause?



Economics most definitely doesn't come first. That's the whole thing. We need to reconfigure society so that economics is put in its proper place. At the same time, we can't pretend that it doesn't exist or that no-one will ever cross a border for commercial purposes.

But businesses have a responsibility to ensure that they only travel where necessary, not just for the fun of it. And that's fine, because travel costs money (mostly in terms of staff costs, not fares and accommodation). So a good business doesn't shunt people around the globe unnecessarily.

Longer term I'd like to see a more diverse British economy so that the movement of both goods and people is reduced.

All this is an entirely different issue from the kind of business that seeks growth by encouraging whimsical discretionary travel - the airports and airlines.


----------



## gabi (Aug 14, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> It's office-based so not much scope for heavy polluting there. Business travel tends to be by train. People do fly, but only where necessary.



If you're david brent, then yes - doing the slough to croydon run... if not, then well.. you're wrong, sorry. I travel regularly for work, and I fly. I'll take the train if possible, but thats very rare (only if I'm going to France).

I dont like the fact, believe me... I opt out wherever possible, but taking the train to Chicago isnt really on the cards.

Video conference is getting better, too slowly, but for me thats the solution.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> Economics most definitely doesn't come first. That's the whole thing. We need to reconfigure society so that economics is put in its proper place. At the same time, we can't pretend that it doesn't exist or that no-one will ever cross a border for commercial purposes.
> 
> But businesses have a responsibility to ensure that they only travel where necessary, not just for the fun of it. And that's fine, because travel costs money (mostly in terms of staff costs, not fares and accommodation). So a good business doesn't shunt people around the globe unnecessarily.
> 
> ...



Fuck off, you've said nothing. Where do i get to vote on your business travel  neccessities? And fuck off doubly, because it's not hotel costs that are the problem. Who voted you and your business mindset control of the world ecology - who gives you the right to fly only when necessary (read 'makes your company some more money') effecting the whole world as a result of your greed?

And please, don't pose as a concerned citizen.


----------



## untethered (Aug 14, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Where do i get to vote on your business travel  neccessities?



You get two votes. One when you decide which companies to spend your money with. And again when you vote for a government which regulates how all businesses operate (or at least it would if it wasn't subservient to EU law).




			
				butchersapron said:
			
		

> who gives you the right to fly only when necessary (read 'makes your company some more money') effecting the whole world as a result of your greed?



You do, oddly enough. You probably don't realise it though.




			
				butchersapron said:
			
		

> And please, don't pose as a concerned citizen.



I've been an environmentalist all my adult life, so I'd appreciate if you didn't try to lecture me on how I "pose".

The people at the climate camp are doing the right thing getting this issue onto the political agenda and keeping it in the headlines. I hope few are naive enough to think that society and the economy is going to transform itself overnight. The arguments need to be made and won, and a long process of change will have to take place to improve the way people work and live.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> You get two votes. One when you decide which companies to spend your money with. And again when you vote for a government which regulates how all businesses operate (or at least it would if it wasn't subservient to EU law).



So bacially, we have to _stop_ you killing the earth? You can't do it yourself. Not until the markert tells you to? Join us in our suicide pact or we'll kill you.



> You do, oddly enough. You probably don't realise it though.



No i don't. The market is not democratic. It's based on on existing power and privelige. It's not got a universal sufferage.  We don't all get a vote. And the voting is rigged.  And your wife left you because you're bald.



> I've been an environmentalist all my adult life, so I'd appreciate if you didn't try to lecture me on how I "pose".
> 
> The people at the climate camp are doing the right thing getting this issue onto the political agenda and keeping it in the headlines. I hope few are naive enough to think that society and the economy is going to transform itself overnight. The arguments need to be made and won, and a long process of change will have to take place to improve the way people work and live.



You' are posing. It means nothing if you believe and act in this way. It's pathetic.  

'Only where necessary'


----------



## untethered (Aug 14, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> So bacially, we have to _stop_ you killing the earth? You can't do it yourself. Not until the markert tells you to? Join us in our suicide pact or we'll kill you.



I think you're just ranting now. There's no need to make it personal.




			
				butchersapron said:
			
		

> No i don't. The market is not democratic. It's based on on existing power and privelige. It's not got a universal sufferage.  We don't all get a vote. And the voting is rigged.  And your wife left you because you're bald.



 You're a very strange fellow. Did you know that?

For anyone concerned, Mrs Untethered is present, correct and a very happy lady and I have a fine head of (my own) hair. But thanks for your concern.




			
				butchersapron said:
			
		

> You' are posing. It means nothing if you believe and act in this way. It's pathetic.
> 
> 'Only where necessary'



Well I'm sorry that you're not sufficiently connected to the real world to understand that fundamental changes work through transitions, not revolutions.

Perhaps I'll see you at the camp and we can thrash this out over a cup of char!


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> I think you're just ranting now. There's no need to make it personal.
> 
> You get two votes. One when you decide which companies to spend your money with. And again when you vote for a government which regulates how all businesses operate (or at least it would if it wasn't subservient to EU law).



So bacially, we have to stop you killing the earth? You can't do it yourself. Not until the markert tells you to? Join us in our suicide pact or we'll kill you.




			
				untethered said:
			
		

> You do, oddly enough. You probably don't realise it though.




No i don't. The market is not democratic. It's based on on existing power and privelige. It's not got a universal sufferage. We don't all get a vote. And the voting is rigged. And your wife left you because you're bald.[/quote]

Response?




			
				untethered said:
			
		

> You're a very strange fellow. Did you know that?
> 
> For anyone concerned, Mrs Untethered is present, correct and a very happy lady and I have a fine head of (my own) hair. But thanks for your concern.
> 
> ...



Some blah mangement speak that means, look you can't _make_ me and my business stop taking those planes  - so how about this, i flannel about the earth and carry right on as before. Just got a call from bono! Gotta go.


----------



## e19896 (Aug 14, 2007)

It is long overdue that we deal with FIT it is not only protesters who come under there fucking watch but football fans young old any sex and often in full riot gear i have been takeing images of them doing this.. 

goto http://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2007/06/374347.html

some i gatherd in Manchester on The coranaton of brown and a Sunday demo.. 

also goto here http://www.flickr.com/groups/copswithcameras/ and here
http://www.urban75.org/info/about1.html Fit have indeed only become omnepresent since 2000 but have been at play since 1994 indeed long over due we watch them..

e19896
aka Mark Mozaz Wallis..
fuck The FIT..


----------



## Cobbles (Aug 14, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Where do i get to vote on your business travel  neccessities?



In the boardroom, dimwit.

Unlike Governments Corporate entities are utterly democratic - 1 share = 1 vote so if you don't like the way a company is run, just buy a majority shareholding and change it.

How is it democratic for a few hundred pillocks to disrupt the lives of the thousands who use Heathrow on a daily basis, never mind the tens of thousands who work there? If, misguidedly, people think that the expansion of air travel is a bad thing then they can take that up at the ballot box.

Direct action is just a bunch of narcissists having a day out of the asylum.


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Aug 14, 2007)

Cobbles said:
			
		

> In the boardroom, dimwit.
> 
> Unlike Governments Corporate entities are utterly democratic - 1 share = 1 vote so if you don't like the way a company is run, just buy a majority shareholding and change it.



Are you a comedian?



> Direct action is just a bunch of narcissists having a day out of the asylum.



run along now--time for your injection.


----------



## jiggajagga (Aug 14, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> I'm right behind the climate camp just as long as they keep it legal and decent.



Would women have got the vote if they had been 'legal and decent'?
Would trade unionists have won holiday rights, etc, etc if they had 'kept it legal and decent'?
Would Maggie have scrapped the poll tax had the crowd remained 'legal and decent?
Would Mandella have become PM of S Africa if he had kept it 'legal and decent'?

Did the 2 million man march against the Iraq war fail to stop our country going in because it *WAS* 'legal and decent'?


----------



## chymaera (Aug 14, 2007)

jiggajagga said:
			
		

> Would women have got the vote if they had been 'legal and decent'?
> Would trade unionists have won holiday rights, etc, etc if they had 'kept it legal and decent'?
> Would Maggie have scrapped the poll tax had the crowd remained 'legal and decent?
> Would Mandella have become PM of S Africa if he had kept it 'legal and decent'?



I would argue that women got the vote because of the First World War when they proved beyond a shadow of a doubt they could do, with very few exception the same work as men and deserved to be treated equally.
(Were there any working class suffragettes?)
Did breaking up machinery in factories stop mechanisation.
The scrapping of the poll tax had nothing whatever to do with riots, it had to do with it proving very difficult if not impossible to collect.
I am somewhat uncertain about your Mandela comment given how long he was imprisoned for.
I would have thought he ended up as PM due to a unstoppable climate shift in the politics of South Africa.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2007)

Cobbles said:
			
		

> In the boardroom, dimwit.
> 
> Unlike Governments Corporate entities are utterly democratic - 1 share = 1 vote so if you don't like the way a company is run, just buy a majority shareholding and change it.
> 
> ...



Lord above. I have no money to buy shares. So i can't vote. Modern representative democracy means (or is supposed to) the right of all to participate equally in their civic or social orgnaisation regardless of their economic siutation. Why do you get to fuck up my enviroment just because you have more inherited money? How is money = more votes utterly democratic, it's the utter negation of democracy or popular participation you leather driving glove clown.


----------



## editor (Aug 14, 2007)

e19896 said:
			
		

> also goto here http://www.flickr.com/groups/copswithcameras/ and here
> http://www.urban75.org/info/about1.html


Why are you linking to the urban 'about us' page?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2007)

chymaera said:
			
		

> I would argue that women got the vote because of the First World War when they proved beyond a shadow of a doubt they could do, with very few exception the same work as men and deserved to be treated equally.
> (Were there any working class suffragettes?)
> Did breaking up machinery in factories stop mechanisation.
> The scrapping of the poll tax had nothing whatever to do with riots, it had to do with it proving very difficult if not impossible to collect.
> ...



Yes there were many working class suffragettes.
No machine breaking didn't stop mechanisation but it did change the basis for introduction - and for the better of the workers.
Ye, the poll tax being pulled had a fair bit to with the series of riots around rate-setting days, they were part of the impossibility to collect.


----------



## Fruitloop (Aug 14, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Lord above. I have no money to buy shares. So i can't vote. Modern representative democracy means (or is supposed to) the right of all to participate equally in their civic or social orgnaisation regardless of their economic siutation. Why do you get to fuck up my enviroment just because you have more inherited money? How is money = more votes utterly democratic, it's the utter negation of democracy or popular participation you leather driving glove clown.



Interesting how the right-wing line seems to have come out of the closet on these issues - clearly the fig-leaf of liberal democracy is no longer considered necessary in this country.


----------



## jiggajagga (Aug 14, 2007)

chymaera said:
			
		

> I am somewhat uncertain about your Mandela comment given how long he was imprisoned for.
> I would have thought he ended up as PM due to a unstoppable climate shift in the politics of South Africa.



And what caused the 'unstoppable climate shift'? Violence by the ANC perhaps?


----------



## chymaera (Aug 14, 2007)

jiggajagga said:
			
		

> And what caused the 'unstoppable climate shift'? Violence by the ANC perhaps?



Personally I don't think so. (Is the average black South African any better of now than they were before Mandela became PM?)


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2007)

Two unconnected questions. 

But the _threat_ of massive violence from the black majority was certainly _a part_ of the shift -and the white ruling classes need to ensure that their interests weren't turnned upside down if this came to pass (hand in hand with the waiting black ruling class of course - ah isn't that nice)


----------



## articul8 (Aug 14, 2007)

chymaera said:
			
		

> The scrapping of the poll tax had nothing whatever to do with riots, it had to do with it proving very difficult if not impossible to collect.



yes, because thousands of people had _illegally_ refused to pay it!


----------



## Fruitloop (Aug 14, 2007)

Doubtless the useful idiots here would have supported locking them up or killing them - after all they were breaking the law rather than lobbying the Govt like they should have done.


----------



## chymaera (Aug 14, 2007)

articul8 said:
			
		

> yes, because thousands of people had _illegally_ refused to pay it!



Refusing to pay it is not rioting in the streets and doing criminal damage.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2007)

Yeah, the two groups were clearly totally seperate and with no crossover.


----------



## Cobbles (Aug 14, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Lord above. I have no money to buy shares. So i can't vote.



No problem - go out and earn some.




			
				butchersapron said:
			
		

> Why do you get to fuck up my enviroment just because you have more inherited money?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2007)

Cobbles said:
			
		

> No problem - go out and earn some.
> 
> All my equities have been purchased with money that I earned.



And i can compete with multi-millionaires just like that. I love democracy!

Of course they have.


----------



## TAE (Aug 14, 2007)

e19896 said:
			
		

> also goto here http://www.flickr.com/groups/copswithcameras/



Do you ever get the impression they are compensating for something ?

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/59/224693139_24c07ef004.jpg?v=0


----------



## TAE (Aug 14, 2007)

chymaera said:
			
		

> Refusing to pay it is not rioting in the streets and doing criminal damage.


Nor is a peaceful road block.

A protest can be illegal and peaceful at the same time.


----------



## TAE (Aug 14, 2007)

In case anyone missed it, the authories are only concerned about peaceful protests causing disruption:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6943549.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6945300.stm

Why they are using anti-terror legislation at is beyond me.


----------



## chymaera (Aug 14, 2007)

TAE said:
			
		

> Nor is a peaceful road block.
> 
> A protest can be illegal and peaceful at the same time.



There is no such thing as a peaceful road block from the point of view to those being stopped.


----------



## Fruitloop (Aug 14, 2007)

Is your definition of 'peaceful' different to everyone elses?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2007)

More rubbish. And illegal isn't in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## llantwit (Aug 14, 2007)

chymaera said:
			
		

> There is no such thing as a peaceful road block from the point of view to those being stopped.


----------



## jiggajagga (Aug 14, 2007)

TAE said:
			
		

> Why they are using anti-terror legislation at is beyond me.



Because they can?
This is why, when this anti terror legislation was going through parliament,   many were up in arms shouting 'too much, this is only the beginning'.
Those fools who didn't understand said 'if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear'.
Now you see it in all its glory.
Its not where it starts, its where it finishes. The state will use all the powers it has (regardless of what it says publicly) to maintain the _status quo _

Its the same with the 90 days without charge shit the government is trying for again. If they get 90days do you think they will stop there?


----------



## editor (Aug 14, 2007)

chymaera said:
			
		

> There is no such thing as a peaceful road block from the point of view to those being stopped.


Could you explain what violence is involved in a road block please? You see I've been on loads of peaceful demos that have involved blocking the road for a while and seen no violence whatsoever. So what the fuck are you on about?


----------



## nosos (Aug 14, 2007)

Is chymaera tobyjug?


----------



## Cobbles (Aug 14, 2007)

TAE said:
			
		

> In case anyone missed it, the authories are only concerned about peaceful protests causing disruption:
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6943549.stm
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6945300.stm
> ...



From the first quoted article:

_Chief Superintendent Ian Thomas said the protesters were on the site - a sports ground belonging to Imperial College London - illegally. 

A spokeswoman for the college said it hoped the protest would be "peaceful, safe and not damage the land". 

She said the college had not given permission for the protest and was reserving the right to claim damages or costs from those on the land. 

"Any person who gains access to and/or occupies these fields is doing so unlawfully and should vacate the field," she added._

Arrests for trespass and criminal damage all round seem to be immediately necessary. I can't imagine what the Police are waiting for.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2007)

You to die?


----------



## ddraig (Aug 14, 2007)

chymaera said:
			
		

> There is no such thing as a peaceful road block from the point of view to those being stopped.



TOBY! you're slipping into your bullshit assumptions dressed as 'perceived wisdom' again, it DOES NOT WORK, remember?


----------



## ddraig (Aug 14, 2007)

nosos said:
			
		

> Is chymaera tobyjug?


yes, he was doing quite well at hiding it overall but has well slipped the last few days


----------



## chymaera (Aug 14, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> Could you explain what violence is involved in a road block please? You see I've been on loads of peaceful demos that have involved blocking the road for a while and seen no violence whatsoever. So what the fuck are you on about?




Your definition of a road block may well be different to mine. I certainly would be and have been terrified of road blocks. Especially when there are a load of people shouting from behind the barrier.


----------



## untethered (Aug 14, 2007)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Is your definition of 'peaceful' different to everyone elses?



A situation where you effectively compel others to use violence to do things they're lawfully entitled to do is not peaceful, even if you're not using violence yourselves. That is the conceit of non-violent direct action. Make other people use violence and spuriously claim the moral high ground.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> A situation where you effectively compel others to use violence to do things they're lawfully entitled to do is not peaceful, even if you're not using violence yourselves. That is the conceit of non-violent direct action. Make other people use violence and spuriously claim the moral high ground.



Amazing.  

The violence is then peaceful by definition i suppose.


----------



## chymaera (Aug 14, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> Could you explain what violence is involved in a road block please? You see I've been on loads of peaceful demos that have involved blocking the road for a while and seen no violence whatsoever. So what the fuck are you on about?



The blocking of a road is a violent act of itself, and scares the shit out of anyone stopped by it. (If I knew a road was being blocked  when I was a lorry driver I would not go anywhere near it. It all too often descends into a very violent situation.)


----------



## untethered (Aug 14, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Amazing.



Isn't it just?

Are you off to "peacefully" contrive a confrontation with someone? Perhaps you want to sit in your neighbour's driveway just as he's leaving for work and block his car from moving. Would that be a peaceful action or an aggressive one?


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 14, 2007)

jiggajagga said:
			
		

> Because they can?


That's exactly why - it allows search without the tiresome need for reasonable grounds to suspect the possession of prohibited articles.

The blanket application of the powers under s.44 Terrorism Act, covering whole areas, constantly needs to be challenged.  The courts will look at the intention of the legislation and I am sure that there is some scope for them to restrict the use of the power.  A judicial review of the granting of the authorisations would be a good place to start - anything which appears to be a rubber-stamping exercise is quite likely to be struck down by the Courts. 

A few individual challenges, to make officers realise they must still be looking for items involved with terrorism to justify their use of the power, would also not go amiss.  I can perceive of circumstances where the purported use of the power could really not be justified even to the very limited extent it needs to be once the authorisation has ben granted.

As it happens though, the Climate Camp about 1km from Heathrow would probably not be the best place to start, as a reasonable case could be made for a fear that those wanting to bring terror to the airlines could well use the Camp as cover.  I would be very surprised if a challenge to the use of the power in these circumstances were ruled unlawful.  In fact, an authorisation of, say the LBs of Hillingdon and Hounslow from now until two weeks hence (extended if the Camp / activities extends) would be a reasonable example of the "proper" exercise of the power compared to what we have had from the outset.


----------



## untethered (Aug 14, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> The violence is then peaceful by definition i suppose.



Violence is violence, whether it's justified or not. And perhaps many activists might want to claim that the violent situations they contrive are indeed justified. They can do that if they want. What they can't do is call it peaceful.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 14, 2007)

Cobbles said:
			
		

> Arrests for trespass and criminal damage all round seem to be immediately necessary. I can't imagine what the Police are waiting for.


Perhaps the power to arrest for trespass ...


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> Isn't it just?
> 
> Are you off to "peacefully" contrive a confrontation with someone? Perhaps you want to sit in your neighbour's driveway just as he's leaving for work and block his car from moving. Would that be a peaceful action or an aggressive one?



I'm too busy laughing at you frankly. Driveway eh?

So, bascially, violence, illegal violence, is all that you can think of as a response to a roadblock. Amazing


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> Violence is violence, whether it's justified or not. And perhaps many activists might want to claim that the violent situations they contrive are indeed justified. They can do that if they want. What they can't do is call it peaceful.



Who did you attack, what did the court give you for it and why are you whinging on here about it?


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 14, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> You see I've been on loads of peaceful demos that have involved blocking the road for a while and seen no violence whatsoever.


It's a pretty standard "nuisance causing" peaceful tactic and has been for years.  Irritating for those who want to move past, but not inherently violent (and usually allowed to be there for a while before being moved on / removed).  The more modern equivalent is the lock-on (which extends the life of the nuisance whilst the means to unlock them are obtained).


----------



## untethered (Aug 14, 2007)

LX365 said:
			
		

> If we were being systematically tortured by the State, we would protest. Mental abuse is just as important and it is vital to the strength of our actions that we challenge this.



And isn't this the whole subject of the thread - that the actions of the FITs are aggressive and harmful though taking pictures isn't in itself "violent"?

So the issue isn't about peaceful actions vs. violent ones. It's about justified actions vs. unjustified ones. This is precisely the point that many violent activists make, and philosophically they're right. It's the "peaceful" activists that are deluding themselves but rarely fooling anyone else.


----------



## untethered (Aug 14, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Who did you attack, what did the court give you for it and why are you whinging on here about it?



I don't have any criminal convictions, but thanks for asking.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> I don't have any criminal convictions, but thanks for asking.



So you're simply _advocating_ illegal violence rather than having participated in it. Amazing. Again.


----------



## untethered (Aug 14, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> I'm too busy laughing at you frankly. Driveway eh?
> 
> So, bascially, violence, illegal violence, is all that you can think of as a response to a roadblock. Amazing



It might not be illegal violence. It might be the perfectly legal (and in my view) justified violence of people obstructing a road being arrested for it, or people obstructing a lawful activity on private property being removed by the owner's agents.


----------



## untethered (Aug 14, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> So you're simply _advocating_ illegal violence rather than having participated in it. Amazing. Again.



I'm not advocating illegal violence. I am opposed to lawbreaking. I'm saying that some violence is legal, some is justified, and some is both.


----------



## editor (Aug 14, 2007)

chymaera said:
			
		

> The blocking of a road is a violent act of itself, and scares the shit out of anyone stopped by it.


You'll have to point out where this "violence" is taking place please because there is nothing inherently more violent about protesters peacefully blocking a road than there is when a traffic light turns red.


----------



## editor (Aug 14, 2007)

Cobbles said:
			
		

> Arrests for trespass and criminal damage all round seem to be immediately necessary.


What criminal damage has taken place? And why should the police intervene in a civil matter?





> In most cases, trespass is a civil rather than a criminal matter. A landowner may use "reasonable force" to compel a trespasser to leave, but not more than is reasonably necessary. Unless injury to the property can be proven, a landowner could probably only recover nominal damages by suing for trespass.
> http://www.ramblers.org.uk/info/britain/footpathlaw.html#26


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> I'm not advocating illegal violence. I am opposed to lawbreaking. I'm saying that some violence is legal, some is justified, and some is both.



No, you've quite clearly argued that peaceful roadblocks _should_ be met with violence. In fact, you've argued further than that, you've argued that it's _a duty_, a compulsion to use violence against them:

"A situation where you effectively compel others to use violence to do things they're lawfully entitled to do is not peaceful, even if you're not using violence yourselves. That is the conceit of non-violent direct action. Make other people use violence and spuriously claim the moral high ground."


----------



## untethered (Aug 14, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> You'll have to point out where this "violence" is taking place please because there is nothing inherently more violent about protesters peacefully blocking a road than there is when a traffic light turns red.



One situation is unpredictable and causes fear, confrontation and intimidation. The other doesn't. The blockade might not actually lead to physical violence, but it's clearly an aggressive act rather than a peaceful one.


----------



## Buds and Spawn (Aug 14, 2007)

All I can say is...


----------



## chymaera (Aug 14, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> You'll have to point out where this "violence" is taking place please because there is nothing inherently more violent about protesters peacefully blocking a road than there is when a traffic light turns red.




If you are on your own in the cab of a lorry and 25 plus people are blockading the road in front of you they are being violent even if they just stand there and do nothing. (Been there done than burned the T-shirt.)


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2007)

Were you driving during the miners strike chymaera?


----------



## Buds and Spawn (Aug 14, 2007)

chymaera said:
			
		

> If you are on your own in the cab of a lorry and 25 plus people are blockading the road in front of you they are being violent even if they just stand there and do nothing. (Been there done than burned the T-shirt.)


Oh rubbish. I've been involved in countless 'blockades' - and more often than not 'drivers' and 'protestors' have a chat and a smoke etc.. On the other hand if drivers go mental then people can get annoyed... and I have seen quite a few drivers aim their vehicles at people - but I'm sure attempted mass murder is acceptable in the name of pollution.


----------



## Thora (Aug 14, 2007)

chymaera said:
			
		

> If you are on your own in the cab of a lorry and 25 plus people are blockading the road in front of you they are being violent even if they just stand there and do nothing. (Been there done than burned the T-shirt.)


If you're just standing in the road doing nothing, and some bloke in a lorry drives up to you, then isn't HE the one bing violent!?!


----------



## ddraig (Aug 14, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Were you driving during the miners strike chymaera?


init, SCABYJUG
SCABSCABSCAB


----------



## untethered (Aug 14, 2007)

Thora said:
			
		

> If you're just standing in the road doing nothing, and some bloke in a lorry drives up to you, then isn't HE the one bing violent!?!



Perhaps you're both being violent. It's not just one or the other.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2007)

ddraig said:
			
		

> init, SCABYJUG
> SCABSCABSCAB




Hang on, he might have been and he might have refused tro cross picket lines. That would be entirely consistent with other stuff he's said.


----------



## editor (Aug 14, 2007)

chymaera said:
			
		

> If you are on your own in the cab of a lorry and 25 plus people are blockading the road in front of you they are being violent even if they just stand there and do nothing.


Wow. So peacefully and quietly  standing in the road and _doing absolutely nothing_ is an act of violence in your world?

Incredible.


----------



## editor (Aug 14, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> One situation is unpredictable and causes fear, confrontation and intimidation.


Good grief. Are you some kind of timid little mouse or something?

Most times I've been around when a road has been briefly blocked as part of a demo, the majority of motorists take it in good humour. And that'll be because it's abundantly clear that those taking part have absolutely no interest in violence at all.


----------



## untethered (Aug 14, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> Wow. So peacefully and quietly  standing in the road and _doing absolutely nothing_ is an act of violence in your world?



Do you define "peace" as an absence of literal physical violence? Funny you.

Do you think the FITs are "peaceful"?


----------



## untethered (Aug 14, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> Good grief. Are you some kind of timid little mouse or something?



We're not talking about me, whether I be a mouse or a lion. We're talking about anyone that might consider a blockade to be a hostile act.

And isn't that the whole point? They're designed to be hostile acts and the whole distinction between that and non-violence is just pedantry.




			
				editor said:
			
		

> Most times I've been around when a road has been briefly blocked as part of a demo, the majority of motorists take it in good humour. And that'll be because it's abundantly clear that those taking part have absolutely no interest in violence at all.



How about the minority? Don't they matter to you?

And what about situations such as where offices are occupied? The invasion of enclosed private property is considerably more intimidating than obstructing someone in open public space.

Isn't that an extremely hostile thing to do, even if no-one is hurt and no damage is caused?


----------



## editor (Aug 14, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> And what about situations such as where offices are occupied? The invasion of enclosed private property is considerably more intimidating than obstructing someone in open public space.
> 
> Isn't that an extremely hostile thing to do, even if no-one is hurt and no damage is caused?


Sorry, I'm having to jog to keep up with this goalpost shifting here.

What's an office occupation got to do with this?   

But back on topic, how many times have you been actually been directly involved in a road being temporarily blocked as part of a demo?

Could you give me some examples please?


----------



## editor (Aug 14, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> Do you define "peace" as an absence of literal physical violence? Funny you.


I'm not offering a definition of 'peace' but I'm certainly challenging the idiotic assertion that a peaceful demo can somehow be described as "violent."


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2007)

...and why do you think illegal violence is then a duty of those delayed?


----------



## untethered (Aug 14, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> Sorry, I'm having to jog to keep up with this goalpost shifting here.



It's not goalpost shifting. We're talking about the nature of supposedly "non-violent" direct action. I think it's relevant to examine various examples of actions that are described as such. Ok?




			
				editor said:
			
		

> how many times have you been actually been directly involved in a road being temporarily blocked as part of a demo?
> 
> Could you give me some examples please?



How many times have you been involved in a nuclear war? Participation isn't a precondition for having an opinion on something. So rather than challenging my right to make an argument, perhaps you'd like to address the argument itself.


----------



## untethered (Aug 14, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> ...and why do you think illegal violence is then a duty of those delayed?



I didn't say that it necessarily was. However, I did give two examples of where a non-violent direct action may lead to legal violence.

Do read more closely in future.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 14, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> the idiotic assertion that a peaceful demo can somehow be described as "violent."



Come now comrade, can't you see the dialectic (peaceful demos can be still be violently disruptive of "normality", whilst sometimes violent demos can sometimes act as a spur for authorities to grant themselves more powers).

None of which alters the fact that sitting in a road is not a violent act, nor must it provoke violence in response.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2007)

It's a good fucking start though.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> I didn't say that it necessarily was. However, I did give two examples of where a non-violent direct action may lead to legal violence.
> 
> Do read more closely in future.



Yes you did and you used the phrase:

"A situation where you effectively compel others to use violence to do things.."

That's your words. And no you didn't give any examples in that post, you just gave a general indication that illegal violence was the only possible response. Do read your own words more closely in future.


----------



## untethered (Aug 14, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> I'm not offering a definition of 'peace' but I'm certainly challenging the idiotic assertion that a peaceful demo can somehow be described as "violent."



Well unless you really want to get into a ridiculous level of semantic detail, I'm defining "non-violent" and "peaceful" to mean the same thing. 

I have described how a "peaceful demo" that you describe can clearly be a hostile act and in almost every situation similar to the one you describe, it is.

Hostile acts are not peaceful, even if they are not literally violent. So really this appellation of "non-violent" direct action is quite disingenuous. If you mean "peaceful" direct action, you probably shouldn't be doing something that at best irritates others and at worst leads to real physical violence.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> I'm defining "non-violent" and "peaceful" to mean the same




Lovely. Off you go then.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2007)

Hostile equals a situation where illegal violence is the only possible response. 

Where's them goalposts gone?


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 14, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> Do you think the FITs are "peaceful"?


The activities of FIT teams do not involve physical force, not least because they would usually have no power to use any such force.  They basically take pictures and notes of things happening in public places.  They operate overtly.  (Covert intelligence gathering requiring different skills, equipment and authorisation under the RIPA legislation).


----------



## articul8 (Aug 14, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> Hostile acts are not peaceful, even if they are not literally violent. So really this appellation of "non-violent" direct action is quite disingenuous. If you mean "peaceful" direct action, you probably shouldn't be doing something that at best irritates others and at worst leads to real physical violence.



your real complaint seems to be that non-violent direct action can be effective, and get under the skin of people who want things to be left as they are.

You don't mind "peaceful" direct action, just so long as it's so ineffective that nobody cares or notices.


----------



## untethered (Aug 14, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Yes you did and you used the phrase:
> 
> "A situation where you effectively compel others to use violence to do things.."
> 
> That's your words. And no you didn't give any examples in that post, you just gave a general indication that illegal violence was the only possible response. Do read your own words more closely in future.



I did in #158 as I developed the point later.

By obstructing someone doing something lawful, even without offering violence yourself, you are compelling them either to desist from what they would otherwise lawfully do, or use (perhaps by proxy) lawful violence to clear the obstruction.

You might think that is justifiable. I'm just saying that using such tactics is a pretty hostile way of behaving and can't be called non-violent, even if it's not you using the violence or no violence occurs.

Peaceful people do not go around stirring up trouble, basically. Honest people do not stir up trouble and sit back and say, look at all these horrible, angry, violent people.

So why not just come out and say that you support bullying, harrassing and intimidatory tactics, but it's all in a good cause? I'd respect that, even though I think your justification is wrong.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> I did in #158 as I developed the point later.
> 
> By obstructing someone doing something lawful, even without offering violence yourself, you are compelling them either to desist from what they would otherwise lawfully do, or use (perhaps by proxy) lawful violence to clear the obstruction.
> 
> ...




Sorry, how does "obstructing someone doing something lawful, even without offering violence yourself, you are compelling them either to desist from what they would otherwise lawfully do" justify illegal violence (sneaked the 'by proxy' so you can pretend that you really meant the police in there i see ) there's some goalposts missing on another thread, have you seen them? 

What a refreshing change from yout stance on the shoplifting thread where all illegality was condemnded. There's a question unanswered on the other thread btw. What condtions suffice for you to carry out illegal acts as per your reading?


----------



## untethered (Aug 14, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> The activities of FIT teams do not involve physical force, not least because they would usually have no power to use any such force.  They basically take pictures and notes of things happening in public places.  They operate overtly.  (Covert intelligence gathering requiring different skills, equipment and authorisation under the RIPA legislation).



Entirely true. But I'm making a distinction between acts that use force (justified/legal or otherwise), acts that do not use force but are harrassing and intimidatory and ones that are genuinely peaceful where the aim of people is to persuade rather than coerce.

In the case of the FITs, I entirely see the OP's complaint that the FITs can (presumably) be intimidatory and that is not "peaceful", even if it's not literally violent. So developing the theme, I'd say the same is entirely true of many "non-violent direct actions". The aim is to harrass, obstruct, intimidate and bully, not to calmly let people go about their lawful business.


----------



## untethered (Aug 14, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Sorry, how does "obstructing someone doing something lawful, even without offering violence yourself, you are compelling them either to desist from what they would otherwise lawfully do" justify illegal violence (sneaed the 'by proxy' so you can pretend that you really meant the police there- there's some goalposts missing on another thread, have you seen them?



I said it could justify lawful violence, not illegal violence.

And yes, the "by proxy" bit does mean the police. That's entirely the right way to resolve the situation.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> I said it could justify lawful violence, not illegal violence.
> 
> And yes, the "by proxy" bit does mean the police. That's entirely the right way to resolve the situation.



No you didn;t, have a look at what you actually said then and after.

 And the get out card is now played. 

Do you really think the poilice can only respond to peacrefulroadblocks by violence? Is that how little you think of them? That they're complelled by the sight of roadblocks to do violence? For shame.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Aug 14, 2007)

> Very very long quote from a source mentioned below






			
				Fruitloop said:
			
		

> from A. Robinson _Social Logic of the State_



Fruitloop

I tried to read that quote but couldn't understand it after about 2 lines.  I then copied and pasted it with a view to breaking it up into paragraphs to make it easier to read.  I failed.  The whole thing is one long sentence!  If it means anything, then that meaning has got past my means of decoding.


----------



## editor (Aug 14, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> Participation isn't a precondition for having an opinion on something. So rather than challenging my right to make an argument, perhaps you'd like to address the argument itself.


You were the one claiming that drivers facing a non-violent and peaceful temporary road blockage experienced "fear, confrontation and intimidation." 

I'm trying to work out what you're basing this scenario on because my _actual experience of such demos_ doesn't tally with your dramatic claims.

So what are you basing it on?


----------



## untethered (Aug 14, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Do you really think the poilice can only respond to peacrefulroadblocks by violence? Is that how little you think of them? That they're complelled by the sight of roadblocks to do violence? For shame.



There was an "if" in there, wasn't there?

People are compelled to use lawful violence by proxy _if _ they want to carry on with what they would otherwise lawfully do.

That doesn't mean the police are compelled to clear road blockades so that people can move in every instance. In some situations the protesters will get bored/hungry/tired and leave of their own accord. In others, there might be a suitable diversion. In others, force may have to be used to clear the road if the situation isn't otherwise resolved in a reasonable time. In all situations, the police are quite justified and would be lawful in clearing the blockade, even if they choose not to do so or it does not become necessary.

So give it up. NVDA is about exercising power over others, most often without a great deal of legitimacy, mandate or accountability. That's not a peaceful way of acting towards others, however justifiable you might think it is sometimes.


----------



## untethered (Aug 14, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> You were the one claiming that drivers facing a non-violent and peaceful temporary road blockage experienced "fear, confrontation and intimidation."
> 
> I'm trying to work out what you're basing this scenario on because my _actual experience of such demos_ doesn't tally with your dramatic claims.
> 
> So what are you basing it on?



How do you know that no-one affected wasn't afraid or intimidated?

They were certainly all confronted. That's the whole point of it, isn't it?


----------



## Fruitloop (Aug 14, 2007)

The fact that you can do something lawfully under normal circumstances in no way grants you some absolute right to do so, nor does it empower you to do whatever is necessary in order to enforce such a presumed right. That something is legal simply means that it isn't prohibited by the law, no more.


----------



## untethered (Aug 14, 2007)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> The fact that you can do something lawfully under normal circumstances in no way grants you some absolute right to do so, nor does it empower you to do whatever is necessary in order to enforce such a presumed right. That something is legal simply means that it isn't prohibited by the law, no more.



I think you're confusing law and morality.

If someone infringes my lawful rights, I'm entitled to act in a lawful way to exercise those rights and call on the assistance of others (eg. police) to help me do so.

There may be situations where I cannot exercise my lawful rights because some other person lawfully prevents me from doing so (eg. if my place of business is a crime scene and I'm refused entry by a police officer). But that's different from a group of activists arbitrarily and unlawfully attempting to do the same thing, no matter how morally justified they may feel in doing so.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> There was an "if" in there, wasn't there?



No, there wasn't.



> "A situation where you effectively compel others to use violence to do things they're lawfully entitled to do is not peaceful, even if you're not using violence yourselves. That is the conceit of non-violent direct action. Make other people use violence and spuriously claim the moral high ground."
> People are compelled to use lawful violence by proxy _if _ they want to carry on with what they would otherwise lawfully do.



Can only see the if after the orignal argument that they're complelled by definition to do so.




			
				untethered said:
			
		

> That doesn't mean the police are compelled to clear road blockades so that people can move in every instance. In some situations the protesters will get bored/hungry/tired and leave of their own accord. In others, there might be a suitable diversion. In others, force may have to be used to clear the road if the situation isn't otherwise resolved in a reasonable time. In all situations, the police are quite justified and would be lawful in clearing the blockade, even if they choose not to do so or it does not become necessary.
> 
> So give it up. NVDA is about exercising power over others, most often without a great deal of legitimacy, mandate or accountability. That's not a peaceful way of acting towards others, however justifiable you might think it is sometimes.



Give it up? Look, if you had the balls to actually argue your point through instead of hiding behind later added justifications to ghet you off the hook  this might get somewhere. If you're just goling to retreat and pull the brush in front of you...well, it's pointless.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2007)

That 'if' was from much much later btw, your original read:

"A situation where you effectively compel others to use violence to do things they're lawfully entitled to do is not peaceful, even if you're not using violence yourselves. That is the conceit of non-violent direct action. Make other people use violence and spuriously claim the moral high ground."

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=6343643&postcount=145


----------



## Fruitloop (Aug 14, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> I think you're confusing law and morality.
> 
> If someone infringes my lawful rights, I'm entitled to act in a lawful way to exercise those rights and call on the assistance of others (eg. police) to help me do so.
> 
> There may be situations where I cannot exercise my lawful rights because some other person lawfully prevents me from doing so (eg. if my place of business is a crime scene and I'm refused entry by a police officer). But that's different from a group of activists arbitrarily and unlawfully attempting to do the same thing, no matter how morally justified they may feel in doing so.



What are these rights? Are they written down somewhere?


----------



## untethered (Aug 14, 2007)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> What are these rights? Are they written down somewhere?



I'm talking about legal rights. They are indeed written down, whether as statutes or case law.


----------



## untethered (Aug 14, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> That 'if' was from much much later btw, your original read:
> 
> "A situation where you effectively compel others to use violence to do things they're lawfully entitled to do is not peaceful, even if you're not using violence yourselves. That is the conceit of non-violent direct action. Make other people use violence and spuriously claim the moral high ground."
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=6343643&postcount=145



Thanks, I was just about to quote that.

To avoid any further confusion, I was implying that people thus obstructed have two choices:

1. Not do the thing they were otherwise going to do and thus be deprived of their lawful rights.

2. Use legal violence to assert their rights.

This is not a free choice. It is coercion. Coercion is not peaceful, even if the situation is not resolved by literal violence by anyone.


----------



## editor (Aug 14, 2007)

Here's an update from SchNEWS (excuse the cut and paste):



> GROUND CONTROL
> Climate activists caught the Met's finest flat-footed on Saturday night as they pre-emptively seized land for the climate camp. At 10pm around 150 activists poured onto the site on Sipson Lane near Harlington - just 800m away from BAA's headquarters (see map and directions). Within minutes an intricate tripod structure of scaffold tubes was erected and occupied to prevent a swift eviction.
> 
> In the event police didn't arrive in numbers until over an hour later, giving the squatters time to get vital equipment on-site to begin camping. A perimeter was secured with fencing stakes and rope, and primed with Section 6 notices. Soon after, scores of police arrived and blocked Sipson Lane - preventing vehicle access and conducting random stop and searches under Section 44 of the terrorism act.
> ...


----------



## untethered (Aug 14, 2007)

Here's the latest update from the police. Excuse the cut and paste.



> CAMP FOR CLIMATE ACTION - 2007
> Information Briefing 3
> Heathrow
> 14th – 21st August 2007
> ...


----------



## editor (Aug 14, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> Here's the latest update from the police. Excuse the cut and paste.


Thanks. I'm sure that might encourage a few more people  down to the protest too.

Unfortunately, I'm away this weekend otherwise I would have come down to join the protest and learnt some more about the aims of the protest and future plans.

(Anyone going down fancy writing a report for u75?)


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 14, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> The aim is to harrass, obstruct, intimidate and bully, not to calmly let people go about their lawful business.


That is not the aim of the FITs - their aim is to lawfully gather information in the public domain.  If it was their aim (or even their result) to harass, obstruct, intimidate or bully people going about their lawful business then it would be found to be unlawful if taken before the Courts.  Even excessive breaches of the right to privacy could be challenged in the Courts under the Human Rights Act.  I am unaware of any such cases (but that is not to say there have not been any) but the deployment of teams would need to be justified by a senior officer in relation to each operation and then each individual officer would need to justify their actions on a personal level in each case of a photograph taken or whatever.


----------



## untethered (Aug 14, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> Thanks. I'm sure that might encourage a few more people  down to the protest too.



Fine. I'm thinking of joining it, too.




			
				editor said:
			
		

> (Anyone going down fancy writing a report for u75?)



I'll post something up if I do.


----------



## untethered (Aug 14, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> That is not the aim of the FITs - their aim is to lawfully gather information in the public domain.  *If it was their aim (or even their result) to harass, obstruct, intimidate or bully people going about their lawful business then it would be found to be unlawful if taken before the Courts. * Even excessive breaches of the right to privacy could be challenged in the Courts under the Human Rights Act.  I am unaware of any such cases (but that is not to say there have not been any) but the deployment of teams would need to be justified by a senior officer in relation to each operation and then each individual officer would need to justify their actions on a personal level in each case of a photograph taken or whatever.



There seems to be prima facie evidence that some people are deterred from some lawful protests by the FITs.

I'm sure your answer to that would be the same as mine: bring a case, then.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 14, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> I'm sure your answer to that would be the same as mine: bring a case, then.


Precisely.  That is how the law works in the UK.  Stautes are written and each "side" decides what the words mean and where the limits are drawn ... but until the Courts define them, no-one actually knows.  It would be neither sensible nor efficient for the police to always take a totally paranoid view, any more than it would be sensible for them to always take a totally robust view.  What is required - and what, for the most part, they seek to achieve - is a sensible application of the law based on the best available advice.  As they do not have sixth sense, sometimes they will be found to have acted beyond the extent of the law - but, if that was in good faith / ignorance the Courts will not usually punish the breach.  If they do it again, having been told the limits, however ... 

(So far as I know, there is one such "debate" being used by the Climate Camp themselves ... and that is whether or not s.6 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 would apply to premises such as this field of tents ... the campers obviously believe it would, I'm not sure that would be the case.)


----------



## chymaera (Aug 14, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> Wow. So peacefully and quietly  standing in the road and _doing absolutely nothing_ is an act of violence in your world?
> 
> Incredible.



If there are 25 or so of the usual dodgy looking suspects blocking the road and one of you, yes it is an act of violence.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> Thanks, I was just about to quote that.
> 
> To avoid any further confusion, I was implying that people thus obstructed have two choices:
> 
> ...



No you wasn't as the post itself makes perfectly clear.  You argued that

1) people were compelled to take violent action against peaceful protests (you didn't mention legal or illegal)

2) That any violence used (legal or illegal) is justified.

3) That this was the only option isn that situation (hence the compelled bit)


Uhhh.... that's it. Nothing else. Do read what you wrote.


----------



## untethered (Aug 14, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Uhhh.... that's it. Nothing else. Do read what you wrote.



It's odd that you claim to know both what I wrote (but get it wrong) and also what I intended, even after I clarified the matter.

Are you just trying to score points (albeit quite ineptly) or do you actually have an interest in debating the subject?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2007)

Here's your own words:

"A situation where you effectively compel others to use violence to do things they're lawfully entitled to do is not peaceful, even if you're not using violence yourselves. That is the conceit of non-violent direct action. Make other people use violence and spuriously claim the moral high ground."

Compare them to your 1) and 2) and spot the rather large difference.


----------



## untethered (Aug 14, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Compare them to your 1) and 2) and spot the rather large difference.



And are people not allowed to develop their points, add clarifications or even indeed change their positions slightly if they so choose, not that I have done the latter in this particular case.

You can be as legalistic as you like about what I've written. Not only are you literally wrong, but what you're doing has got nothing to do with debating the issue.

The only issue you seem to want to debate is what I wrote in one particular post and what I may have meant.

Pretty dull, aren't you?


----------



## editor (Aug 14, 2007)

chymaera said:
			
		

> If there are 25 or so of the usual dodgy looking suspects blocking the road and one of you, yes it is an act of violence.


Peacefully sitting down in the road is not an act of violence, no matter how many times you repeat your clueless 'facts' - even when you desperately embellish your story with "dodgy looking suspects."


----------



## untethered (Aug 14, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> Peacefully sitting down in the road is not an act of violence, no matter how many times you repeat your clueless 'facts' - even when you desperately embellish your story with "dodgy looking suspects."



You really haven't addressed my point that a coercive act isn't peaceful, even if it doesn't literally lead to violence.


----------



## TAE (Aug 14, 2007)

jiggajagga said:
			
		

> Because they can?


Obviously. 




			
				jiggajagga said:
			
		

> This is why, when this anti terror legislation was going through parliament, many were up in arms shouting 'too much, this is only the beginning'.


I know, I was one of them. 

For example I argued that these kinds of laws would, in time, be introduced to combat organised crime. This anti-terror legislation is just the start.


----------



## TAE (Aug 14, 2007)

chymaera said:
			
		

> If there are 25 or so of the usual dodgy looking suspects blocking the road and one of you, yes it is an act of violence.


It *might* be considered intimidation if the participants are big nasty looking blokes, but it is certainly not violence.


----------



## TAE (Aug 14, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> To avoid any further confusion, I was implying that people thus obstructed have two choices:
> 
> 1. Not do the thing they were otherwise going to do and thus be deprived of their lawful rights.
> 
> 2. Use legal violence to assert their rights.



Or call the police. Who can remove the peaceful protesters.


----------



## TAE (Aug 14, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> I'd say the same is entirely true of many "non-violent direct actions". The aim is to harrass, obstruct, intimidate and bully, not to calmly let people go about their lawful business.


Not always. Sometimes it is simply meant to get the media's attention. Chaining yourself to a stationary object is an example.


----------



## editor (Aug 14, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> You really haven't addressed my point that a coercive act isn't peaceful, even if it doesn't literally lead to violence.


Specifically, _which_ 'coercive acts', please?


----------



## editor (Aug 14, 2007)

Look at these terrifying people!












Asking for a slap!


----------



## chymaera (Aug 14, 2007)

TAE said:
			
		

> It *might* be considered intimidation if the participants are big nasty looking blokes, but it is certainly not violence.




There is no might about it, is someone going about their lawful occasions feels intimidated by a person or group of people attempting to stop them going about their lawful occasions that sufficient under the law. The perception of threat covers a fair amount of law in such instances.
(Already been quoted by another contributor to the thread).


----------



## Fruitloop (Aug 14, 2007)

No, intimidation is not simply what any nutcase feels to be intimidating, it needs to be justified in some way by actual events.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2007)

chymaera said:
			
		

> There is no might about it, is someone going about their lawful occasions feels intimidated by a person or group of people attempting to stop them going about their lawful occasions that sufficient under the law. The perception of threat covers a fair amount of law in such instances.
> (Already been quoted by another contributor to the thread).



Miners strike chymaera? Is this what you're referring to? Or another dispute?


----------



## chymaera (Aug 14, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Miners strike chymaera? Is this what you're referring to? Or another dispute?



I was not referring to any particular dispute. I have just rummaged through a large file of correspondence I have have had over the years with various home secretaries and found this in a letter from Jack Straw:-
 12 September 1999
Public Order Act 1986, under section 5 it is an offence to behave in such a way which is likely to cause alarm, or distress, *even when no intent is involved.*


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2007)

And?


----------



## Fruitloop (Aug 14, 2007)

The law is an ass, and that law more than most. It marks a turning point in this country's descent from a deformed liberal democracy into something substantially more authoritarian.


----------



## chymaera (Aug 14, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> And?




A group of protestors blockadng a road are breaking the law if anyone they stop, is alarmed or distressed by it.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2007)

If a copper feels that is the case then they have the right to do something. Not you making it up to get home.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2007)

chymaera said:
			
		

> A group of protestors blockadng a road are breaking the law if anyone they stop, is alarmed or distressed by it.



Your posts distress me (i'm outside on an internet cafe).You're breaking the law.


----------



## chymaera (Aug 14, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> If a copper feels that is the case then they have the right to do something. Not you making it up to get home.




Believe me, so called peaceful protesters blocking a road ARE intimidating.


----------



## TAE (Aug 14, 2007)

chymaera said:
			
		

> 12 September 1999
> Public Order Act 1986, under section 5 it is an offence to behave in such a way which is likely to cause alarm, or distress, *even when no intent is involved.*


That's very funny in the context of this thread.



> I know people who will not attend meetings or protests because they can’t deal with the FIT teams


So are the FIT teams in breach of Public Order Act 1986, under section 5 ?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2007)

chymaera said:
			
		

> Believe me, so called peaceful protesters blocking a road ARE intimidating.



I don't believe you though.


----------



## Fruitloop (Aug 14, 2007)

TAE said:
			
		

> That's very funny in the context of this thread.
> 
> 
> So are the FIT teams in breach of Public Order Act 1986, under section 5 ?



Excellent point


----------



## editor (Aug 14, 2007)

chymaera said:
			
		

> Public Order Act 1986, under section 5 it is an offence to behave in such a way which is likely to cause alarm, or distress, *even when no intent is involved.*


Could I have a source for that last bit please?

Thanks.


----------



## editor (Aug 14, 2007)

chymaera said:
			
		

> A group of protestors blockadng a road are breaking the law if anyone they stop, is alarmed or distressed by it.


How about if someone having a heart attack in the street causes me alarm and distress?

Call the cops and get 'em banged up?


----------



## chymaera (Aug 14, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> Could I have a source for that last bit please?
> 
> Thanks.



I already gave one:-Public Order Act 1986, under section 5 it is an offence to behave in such a way which is likely to cause alarm, or distress, even when no intent is involved.


----------



## editor (Aug 14, 2007)

chymaera said:
			
		

> I already gave one:-Public Order Act 1986, under section 5 it is an offence to behave in such a way which is likely to cause alarm, or distress, even when no intent is involved.


Actual source please using your quoted words please. Thanks.


----------



## TAE (Aug 14, 2007)

And chymaera please answer my question if you don't mind.


----------



## chymaera (Aug 14, 2007)

TAE said:
			
		

> And chymaera please answer my question if you don't mind.




What question?


----------



## TAE (Aug 14, 2007)

My post 235.




Btw, he's wikipedia's version of 
Public Order Act 1986, Section 5


----------



## chymaera (Aug 14, 2007)

TAE said:
			
		

> My post 235.



I can't see a question, other than a stupid one.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 14, 2007)

chymaera said:
			
		

> I already gave one:-Public Order Act 1986, under section 5 it is an offence to behave in such a way which is likely to cause alarm, or distress, even when no intent is involved.



bullshit



> 5 Harassment, alarm or distress
> 
> (1)   A person is guilty of an offence if he—
> 
> ...



http://www.webtribe.net/~shg/Public Order Act 1986 (1986 c 64) Sect 4A, 5, 6.htm


----------



## chymaera (Aug 14, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> bullshit




http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/vo011029/debtext/11029-32.htm

Legislation has been passed in more recent years to help the police and the courts to deal more effectively with modern-day illegal coursing. As well as the serious offences of violent disorder and affray, section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 created an offence of using 
"threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour" 

which causes a person to believe that immediate violence would be used against him, or which may provoke violence. Under the section, it is an offence intentionally to behave in a way which is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. Section 5 similarly prohibits such behaviour, or disorderly behaviour which is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress, *even when no intent is involved. *


----------



## TAE (Aug 14, 2007)

chymaera said:
			
		

> I can't see a question, other than a stupid one.


Is that a 'no' ? If so, why not ?


----------



## chymaera (Aug 14, 2007)

TAE said:
			
		

> Is that a 'no' ? If so, why not ?




It is  an I don't bother asking stupid questions. (Detective boy answered the question anyway some messages ago).


----------



## TAE (Aug 14, 2007)

> I don't bother


Nevermind then.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 14, 2007)

chymaera said:
			
		

> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/vo011029/debtext/11029-32.htm
> 
> Legislation has been passed in more recent years to help the police and the courts to deal more effectively with modern-day illegal coursing. As well as the serious offences of violent disorder and affray, section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 created an offence of using
> "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour"
> ...



Yes, that's s4 of the 1986 PoA.  You were on about s5.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 14, 2007)

chymaera said:
			
		

> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/vo011029/debtext/11029-32.htm
> 
> Legislation has been passed in more recent years to help the police and the courts to deal more effectively with modern-day illegal coursing. As well as the serious offences of violent disorder and affray, section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 created an offence of using
> "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour"
> ...




Tell me which bit of that link you posted proves what you say?


----------



## editor (Aug 14, 2007)

chymaera said:
			
		

> which causes a person to believe that immediate violence would be used against him, or which may provoke violence. Under the section, it is an offence intentionally to behave in a way which is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. Section 5 similarly prohibits such behaviour, or disorderly behaviour which is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress, *even when no intent is involved. *


That's not what the law says. 

That's just an MP's _opinion_ of what the law means and that person - just like you - is completely wrong. That is not what Section 5 says. 

Read it for yourself and see if you can find any mention of it being against the law to _unintentionally_ cause alarm or distress. Neither does Section 154 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 which also deals with intentional harassment, alarm or distress.


----------



## chymaera (Aug 14, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Yes, that's s4 of the 1986 PoA.  You were on about s5.



I suggest you bother to read all of the quote.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 14, 2007)

chymaera said:
			
		

> I suggest you bother to read all of the quote.



Another Tobyjug fact eh?


----------



## editor (Aug 14, 2007)

chymaera said:
			
		

> I suggest you bother to read all of the quote.


I suggest you read Sections 4 and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, and then Section 154 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.


----------



## chymaera (Aug 14, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> That's not what the law says.
> 
> That's just an MP's _opinion_ of what the law means and that person - just like you - is completely wrong. That is not what Section 5 says.
> 
> .



I am not going to argue a point of law which has been given in writing to me by both Jack Straw when he was Home Secretary and John Evans when he was Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall Constabulary.
The Public Order Act 1986 was also explained in great detail by a senior police officer at a meeting I attended back in early 1999 to explain that act and others with reguard to public order offences.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 14, 2007)

chymaera said:
			
		

> I am not going to argue a point of law which has been given in writing to me by both Jack Straw when he was Home Secretary and John Evans when he was Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall Constabulary.
> The Public Order Act 1986 was also explained in great detail by a senior police officer at a meeting I attended back in early 1999 to explain that act and others with reguard to public order offences.



You're such a bullshitter.


----------



## editor (Aug 14, 2007)

chymaera said:
			
		

> I am not going to argue a point of law which has been given in writing to me by both Jack Straw when he was Home Secretary and John Evans when he was Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall Constabulary.


There's nothing to ague about, because the terms of the law are very clear and you are completely, absolutely 100% wrong. There is nowhere in the Public Order Act 1986 that says: 



			
				chymaera said:
			
		

> Section 5 similarly prohibits such behaviour, or disorderly behaviour which is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress, *even when no intent is involved*.


You see, no matter what you claim they said to you, senior officers can't add new bits to laws as they fancy because they'd come rather unstuck when those cases come to court.

And I have rather a lot of hands-on experience dealing with the intentional harassment, alarm or distress laws, so I do know the law in this area.


----------



## chymaera (Aug 14, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> You're such a bullshitter.



If you don't believe me I can't help that, I do however have all the documentation and correspondence to hand should it ever been needed at a future date. There were over 50 people at the meeting and more at the subsequent de-brief. That the media did not attend was their own fault, no-one else's.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 14, 2007)

chymaera said:
			
		

> If you don't believe me I can't help that, I do however have all the documentation and correspondence to hand should it ever been needed at a future date. There were over 50 people at the meeting and more at the subsequent de-brief. That the media did not attend was their own fault, no-one else's.



You're a fantasist.


----------



## chymaera (Aug 14, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> You're a fantasist.



Please yourself. I have all the documents and correspondence to hand. 
If you think Jack Straw,John Evans and Hansard are writing bollocks I really can't help that. There is no need whatsover to get shitty with me about it.
The Hansard quote is very much a public record.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 14, 2007)

chymaera said:
			
		

> Please yourself. I have all the documents and correspondence to hand.
> If you think Jack Straw,John Evans and Hansard are writing bollocks I really can't help that. There is no need whatsover to get shitty with me about it.
> The Hansard quote is very much a public record.



You're a well known fantasist.  I don't believe a word you write.


----------



## editor (Aug 14, 2007)

chymaera said:
			
		

> If you don't believe me I can't help that, I do however have all the documentation and correspondence to hand should it ever been needed at a future date. There were over 50 people at the meeting and more at the subsequent de-brief. That the media did not attend was their own fault, no-one else's.


So you're claiming that the "harassment, alarm or distress" laws as written in the Public Order Act 1986 and Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 are in fact incorrect, while the version only known to you and a handful of others is in fact the correct one? 

Well, let's put it to the test.  

Please list the people convicted of causing "behaviour, or disorderly behaviour which is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress, *even when no intent is involved.*"

You'll find lots of figures here: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2005-07-05a.5159.h

But, sadly for you, none to back up your claims.

Looking forward to your stats!


----------



## TAE (Aug 14, 2007)

This is all quite irrelevant to the question of public protest, isn't it ?


----------



## editor (Aug 14, 2007)

TAE said:
			
		

> This is all quite irrelevant to the question of public protest, isn't it ?


It was my concern at the "intentional harassment, alarm or distress" laws (as well as other sections of the law) that led to me getting starting up the Football Fans vs the CJA campaign, which ultimately led to the creation of urban75.

Although the laws were primarily targeting protesters, more football fans ended up getting arrested than anyone else in the first few months of the bill becoming law.

I ended up writing for national newspapers and doing media debates about the impact of the law on footie fans, so I certainly know something about the intentional harassment laws. Well, more than tobyjug anyway.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 15, 2007)

from section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986


> (3)   It is a defence for the accused to prove—
> (c)  	that his conduct was reasonable.



so as long as a persons actions can be judged to be reasonable then there's no problem.

so anyone peacefully blocking a road by say sitting in the road, using a lock on to block the road or even dancing around in the road isn't in breach of section 5.

If people surround a car with sticks in hand that'd be a different matter.


----------



## YouSir (Aug 15, 2007)

Edit: A few pages too late, my bad.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 15, 2007)

TAE said:
			
		

> So are the FIT teams in breach of Public Order Act 1986, under section 5 ?


If they were, then yes.

But (as usual) chymera has selectively quoted "the law" (something of a habit on U75 as I have constantly warned against) and it is not quite so clear cut as they make it appear.

Firstly, s.5 does indeed make it an offence to use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or to display any writing or sign which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the sight or hearing of a person likely to caused harassment, alarm or distress.

But, the power of arrest only comes when a constable has isued a warning to the person concerned and they continue (i.e. the law effectively builds in a warning, so that the continuance AFTER the person knows that they are distressing, etc. someone is realy the offence).

And, despite Jack Straws letter to chymera (something unlikely to be considered relevant by the House of Lords) s.6 of the Act specifically states that a person is only guilty if they INTEND their words/behaviour/sign to be threatening, abusive or insulting or disorderly OR they are AWARE IT MAY be.

And, even more, s.5 provides a defence if the person had no reason to believe there was anyone in sight or hearing or, if they were in a dwelling (the offence only applies in public places), they had no reason to believe it could be seen / heard outside that dwelling or that their behaviour was reasonable.

The last aspect of the defence, that they believed their behaviour was reasonable, would apply to the FIT teams if proceedings were brought against them.  They would need to rely on the proportionality of their actions under the Human Rights Act (as I have previously discussed elsewhere on this thread) as part of their defence.

But, broadly speaking, if people were distressed by the actions of the FIT teams, a criminal complaint / prosecution under s.5 Public Order Act would be a possible means of challenge.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 15, 2007)

TAE said:
			
		

> Btw, he's wikipedia's version of
> Public Order Act 1986, Section 5


PLEASE get out of the habit of using wikipedia as a definitive statement of the law.  It's usually (as here) OK as far as it goes .... but (as here) it rarely provides any of the surrounding detail (such as defences from other sections, case law decisions, implications of OTHER law, etc., etc.).

There are loads of other sources of law on the internet (universities and colleges, commercial law sites, solicitors, rights organisations, etc.) all of which, because they have lawyers on board, have responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of their content, which wikipedia does not.  All of my posts are checked against such sources for content before posting (unless accompanied by a caution or warning).


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 15, 2007)

chymaera said:
			
		

> Please yourself. I have all the documents and correspondence to hand.
> If you think Jack Straw,John Evans and Hansard are writing bollocks I really can't help that. There is no need whatsover to get shitty with me about it.
> The Hansard quote is very much a public record.


For your information, letters and briefings from MPs, ministers and senior police officers and extracts from Hansard do NOT constitute definitive statements of what the law is.  In some (very restricted) circumstances they MAY be used by the Courts in deciding the meaning of the words of a statute but they most definitely are NOT to be relied upon as a definitive statement of what the law actually is.

Unless you have some expertise in law I would very strongly suggest that you desist from making definitive statements.  As I am sure you know, if you hold yourself out as an expert, you may be liable in negligence if you provide defective advice on which someone relies to their detriment.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 15, 2007)

free spirit said:
			
		

> so anyone peacefully blocking a road by say sitting in the road, using a lock on to block the road or even dancing around in the road isn't in breach of section 5.


Such activity as part of a lawful protest MAY be considered "reasonable" by the Courts but there is no guarantee of that (and I would expect a very large number of such instances to be considered unreasonable in practice).  Certainly anything outside negotiated / agreed actions would be likely to be considered unreasonable (e.g. an agreed sit down for ten minutes at the gates of No10 may well be reasonable but an unscheduled forceful deviation from the route followed by an unexpected, spontaneous sitdown for ten minutes on the forecourt of Waterloo Station may not).

Your definitive statement of the availability of this defence should not be relied upon in all such circumstances, each will be judged on it's own facts.

(A good rule of thumb would be to start thinking the defence is evaporating at the point where the police start saying arrests will begin if things are not stopped)


----------



## TAE (Aug 15, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> It was my concern at the "intentional harassment, alarm or distress" laws (as well as other sections of the law) that led to me getting starting up the Football Fans vs the CJA campaign, which ultimately led to the creation of urban75.


Regarding football fans, I know exactly what you are talking about there and I sincerely applaud your work. 

But I really don't know why chymaera brought this up in the first place.


----------



## TAE (Aug 15, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> PLEASE get out of the habit of using wikipedia as a definitive statement of the law.


What habit ? What are you talking about about ? I usually link to the act itself. 




			
				detective-boy said:
			
		

> There are loads of other sources of law on the internet (universities and colleges, commercial law sites, solicitors, rights organisations, etc.) all of which, because they have lawyers on board, have responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of their content, which wikipedia does not.  All of my posts are checked against such sources for content before posting (unless accompanied by a caution or warning).



That's grand. Why don't you give us a link to one of these general reference sites so we can use it in future.


----------



## editor (Aug 15, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> And, despite Jack Straws letter to chymera (something unlikely to be considered relevant by the House of Lords) s.6 of the Act specifically states that a person is only guilty if they INTEND their words/behaviour/sign to be threatening, abusive or insulting or disorderly OR they are AWARE IT MAY be.


Exactly. This is something I'm very familiar with as it was a central part of my Footie Fans vs CJA campaign.

I do hope chymaera has the honesty and the dignity to admit to his glaring error.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 15, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> I do hope chymaera has the honesty and the dignity to admit to his glaring error.



well we know his track record on that don't we!

maybe he'll flounce again


----------



## TAE (Aug 15, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> I do hope chymaera has the honesty and the dignity to admit to his glaring error.


He could even use the defence that the document he linked to misled him.


----------



## editor (Aug 15, 2007)

TAE said:
			
		

> He could even use the defence that the document he linked to misled him.


For someone so quick to publicly tell people they were wrong, his own inability to thoroughly check his facts really was quite inexcusable, IMO.

But I'm sure he'll be along shortly to admit to his error. We all make mistakes from time to time, after all.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 15, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> Such activity as part of a lawful protest MAY be considered "reasonable" by the Courts but there is no guarantee of that (and I would expect a very large number of such instances to be considered unreasonable in practice).  Certainly anything outside negotiated / agreed actions would be likely to be considered unreasonable (e.g. an agreed sit down for ten minutes at the gates of No10 may well be reasonable but an unscheduled forceful deviation from the route followed by an unexpected, spontaneous sitdown for ten minutes on the forecourt of Waterloo Station may not).
> 
> Your definitive statement of the availability of this defence should not be relied upon in all such circumstances, each will be judged on it's own facts.
> 
> (A good rule of thumb would be to start thinking the defence is evaporating at the point where the police start saying arrests will begin if things are not stopped)


hmm yeah I suppose it's not as definitive a defence as it'd seem from my post, was really just trying to point out to tobyjug that it's not as clear but as he was making out, and that generally as long as your actions can be judged to be reasonable then you should be ok.

Obviously this doesn't stop the police from nicking you if in their judgement your actions aren't reasonable, coz in practice the police at protests tend to work on the basis that they can nick and either release later / caution people and nobody will be arsed enough / have the resources to actually take them to court to test whether or not the magistrate / judge considers their actions reasonable.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 15, 2007)

TAE said:
			
		

> Why don't you give us a link to one of these general reference sites so we can use it in future.


There are many.  Which is the most appropriate depends on the subject matter.  All you need is Google and some ability to discern between different hits and who is responsible for them.  Perhaps something called critical reasoning.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 15, 2007)

free spirit said:
			
		

> Obviously this doesn't stop the police from nicking you if in their judgement your actions aren't reasonable, coz in practice the police at protests tend to work on the basis that they can nick and either release later / caution people and nobody will be arsed enough / have the resources to actually take them to court to test whether or not the magistrate / judge considers their actions reasonable.


They tend not to, at least in this sort of situation, as the organisers DO tend to be arsed enough to test things.  But the point is valid in less high-profile circumstances and is exactly why I always stress that people should complain / sue if they have been mistreated or if they feel the police have exceeded their powers.  If people do not, then those officers who do misuse their powers will get away with it because there is no other effective way for every police-public interaction to be supervised.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 15, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> They tend not to, at least in this sort of situation, as the organisers DO tend to be arsed enough to test things.  But the point is valid in less high-profile circumstances and is exactly why I always stress that people should complain / sue if they have been mistreated or if they feel the police have exceeded their powers.  If people do not, then those officers who do misuse their powers will get away with it because there is no other effective way for every police-public interaction to be supervised.



I don't know about these days, but 10 years ago, the police certainly did arrest people on spec and then release without charge to get them out of the way.  It happened to me several times.


----------



## TAE (Aug 16, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> There are many.  Which is the most appropriate depends on the subject matter.  All you need is Google and some ability to discern between different hits and who is responsible for them.  Perhaps something called critical reasoning.


Cute. Is that a 'no' ?


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 16, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I don't know about these days, but 10 years ago, the police certainly did arrest people on spec and then release without charge to get them out of the way.  It happened to me several times.


On numerous occasions I have arrested people quite lawfully ... but later released them without charge because there was no need to pursue the matter further - their arrest and removal from the scene was all that was required.  Sometimes that was accompanied by a formal caution but that only became a possibility in the late 80s and even after that I, and many other officers, would take the view that there was no need to even make it that formal.

This is not only common practice, but it is encouraged by both law and procedure, as it means that the sledgehammer of criminal proceedings dragging on for months / years is not automatically applied, but is used when proportionate to the seriousness of the case.

You should not equate being released without charge as meaning that you were unlawfully / improperly / unjustifiably arrested.


----------



## Fruitloop (Aug 16, 2007)

Sometimes no charges are brought because there is fuck-all to charge them with. I have seen this plenty on RTS etc.


----------



## Thora (Aug 16, 2007)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Sometimes no charges are brought because there is fuck-all to charge them with. I have seen this plenty on RTS etc.


Or, people are charged but then the police can't even be arsed to turn up to court because it's such bullshit, putting those falsely accused under months of stress and wasting the court's time and taxpayers money.


----------



## Fruitloop (Aug 16, 2007)

Or even the cops lie through their teeth and the case is thrown out, as I can remember happening to someone on this site.


----------



## tufty79 (Aug 16, 2007)

sorry for joining in late....




			
				chymaera said:
			
		

> if protestors continue to look like the ones being shown on TV at the moment.)



aye. they should have ensured that power-showers were on site, along with hairdressers and bijou little boutiques for darling shoes and the like (for teh ladies, obviously).  and plastic surgeons for those who are a little too, well, ugly to be considered 'normal looking'?

silly protestors  

and god, aren't *these* protestors from last year just TERRIFYING?


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 16, 2007)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Sometimes no charges are brought because there is fuck-all to charge them with. I have seen this plenty on RTS etc.


In that case take a civil action for unlawful arrest.  

The majority of cases I have been aware of where people have tried that have resulted in their lawyers explaining that the arrests were, in fact, perfectly lawful.  If they were not a successful civil action is the right outcome.


----------



## chymaera (Aug 16, 2007)

tufty79 said:
			
		

> and god, aren't *these* protestors from last year just TERRIFYING?



The picture if far too dark to make any judgement. (I can only just make out the banner).


----------



## tufty79 (Aug 16, 2007)

maybe adjust your screen settings or something technical?  it's fine on my 'puter 

the picture is of a big scary gang of five year olds.
as i said, that's among 'the type' that are down there.

not contributing to society, not even prepared to go out, get a job and earn a decent wage.  more interested in helping themselves, throwing tantrums and playing up against authority figures... and also likely to be unwashed


----------



## Fruitloop (Aug 16, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> In that case take a civil action for unlawful arrest.
> 
> The majority of cases I have been aware of where people have tried that have resulted in their lawyers explaining that the arrests were, in fact, perfectly lawful.  If they were not a successful civil action is the right outcome.



Who has the time, the patience or the money to go through a civil action like that? I only just have the time to actually attend any protests in between work and other commitments. In addition, lots of people's employers are not going to look too kindly on people being arrested in their time off, and the vast majority of folks having been let go will just leave the matter at that. In the meantime the primary objective of dissuading anyone who has anything they may not care to lose from turning up at protests is achieved.


----------



## bluestreak (Aug 16, 2007)

tufty79 said:
			
		

> maybe adjust your screen settings or something technical?  it's fine on my 'puter
> 
> the picture is of a big scary gang of five year olds.
> as i said, that's among 'the type' that are down there.
> ...



scum.  subhuman scum  

we should ban the lot of them.  along with nursery schools.  training camps for terrorists... i bet that was where they learnt to use crayons


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 16, 2007)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Who has the time, the patience or the money to go through a civil action like that? I only just have the time to actually attend any protests in between work and other commitments. In addition, lots of people's employers are not going to look too kindly on people being arrested in their time off, and the vast majority of folks having been let go will just leave the matter at that. In the meantime the primary objective of dissuading anyone who has anything they may not care to lose from turning up at protests is achieved.


So you allow those who act unlawfully to win.

THAT is precisely what is wrong with the world in so many different ways - those with genuine grievances failing to pursue them - against governments, agencies, public services, corporations, thugs and thieves.  There is nothing truer than the saying that all that is needed for evil to triumph is for the good to do nothing (or whatever it is ...).

You find the time to attend protests, what is so different from finding the time to stand up for your rights?

It's not easy, of course it isn't.  Not everyone can achieve it, of course they can't.  There are barriers in your way, of course there are.  But there is NO other way of _ensuring_ that rights are respected.  People standing up for their own rights (and those of the weak) is the only way that the system we have can possibly work.


----------



## Fruitloop (Aug 16, 2007)

The one in the hat is clearly a cunningly disguised islamist, about to sabotage a 747. Or something.


----------



## Fruitloop (Aug 16, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> So you allow those who act unlawfully to win.
> 
> THAT is precisely what is wrong with the world in so many different ways - those with genuine grievances failing to pursue them - against governments, agencies, public services, corporations, thugs and thieves.  There is nothing truer than the saying that all that is needed for evil to triumph is for the good to do nothing (or whatever it is ...).
> 
> You find the time to attend protests, what is so different from finding the time to stand up for your rights?



I just explained it to you. A protest is a one-off, not a drawn-out legal process, it doesn't cost unspecified amounts of money that I almost certainly don't have, I don't want to be taking time off work to go to court particularly, and I don't trust the cops not to lie or the justice system to come to a fair decision.


----------



## TAE (Aug 16, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> In that case take a civil action for unlawful arrest.
> 
> The majority of cases I have been aware of where people have tried that have resulted in their lawyers explaining that the arrests were, in fact, perfectly lawful.  If they were not a successful civil action is the right outcome.


Isn't that the problem though? The police can (claim to) 'suspect' you of something, arrest you, and then let you go - and you have no recourse in law.


----------



## Fruitloop (Aug 16, 2007)

Well exactly. I mean if the government carries on tweaking the 'terrorism' laws until its perfectly legal for the police to declare a zone around any protest where they can pick you up and hold you for as long as they like, it still doesn't make it right.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 16, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> On numerous occasions I have arrested people quite lawfully ... but later released them without charge because there was no need to pursue the matter further - their arrest and removal from the scene was all that was required.  Sometimes that was accompanied by a formal caution but that only became a possibility in the late 80s and even after that I, and many other officers, would take the view that there was no need to even make it that formal.
> 
> This is not only common practice, but it is encouraged by both law and procedure, as it means that the sledgehammer of criminal proceedings dragging on for months / years is not automatically applied, but is used when proportionate to the seriousness of the case.
> 
> You should not equate being released without charge as meaning that you were unlawfully / improperly / unjustifiably arrested.



You're not listening.  I have been unlawfully arrested many times.  It was a common thing for the police to do back in the 90's on protests.  Quite a few hunt sabs had some nice holidays courtesy of suing the police.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 16, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> In that case take a civil action for unlawful arrest.
> 
> The majority of cases I have been aware of where people have tried that have resulted in their lawyers explaining that the arrests were, in fact, perfectly lawful.  If they were not a successful civil action is the right outcome.



Civil action is not always possible.  Courts are not always impartial.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 16, 2007)

TAE said:
			
		

> Isn't that the problem though? The police can (claim to) 'suspect' you of something, arrest you, and then let you go - and you have no recourse in law.


Not really.  

If you are talking about arrests made on suspicion of indictable (previously arrestable) offences the civil courts frequently find themselves testing the validity of those original suspicions (and, in my experience, many of the cases which go against the police are for exactly this sort of arrest.  

If you are talking about lesser offences such as disorder and obstruction offences (as are usually the case for arrests during protests) there is no real scope for arresting "on suspicion" - the evidence is there or it is not.  You would be arrested for, say, obstructing the highway, or threatening behaviour, on the basis of what has already happened.  Arrests on "suspicion" of these minor offences are not usually the case at all.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 16, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> You're not listening.


Please stop following me round telling me what I think and what I am doing.

* Unsubscribes from this thread too *


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 16, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> Please stop following me round telling me what I think and what I am doing.
> 
> * Unsubscribes from this thread too *



You're paranoid mate.  This is the only interaction* I've had with you since your flounce.  I'm asking you to please pay attention to what people tell you.  Instead, you'd prefer to flounce.  Get a grip eh?

*correction - 2nd


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 16, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> Not really.
> 
> If you are talking about arrests made on suspicion of indictable (previously arrestable) offences the civil courts frequently find themselves testing the validity of those original suspicions (and, in my experience, many of the cases which go against the police are for exactly this sort of arrest.
> 
> If you are talking about lesser offences such as disorder and obstruction offences (as are usually the case for arrests during protests) there is no real scope for arresting "on suspicion" - the evidence is there or it is not.  You would be arrested for, say, obstructing the highway, or threatening behaviour, on the basis of what has already happened.  Arrests on "suspicion" of these minor offences are not usually the case at all.



Again, you're not listening to people's experiences.  The police do arrest people on suspicion of public order offences.  It's happened to me and no doubt countless others.  On actions like Reclaim the Streets, I've been arrested before any actions took place, for blocking a public highway, because I was wearing a fluouro jacket (I wasn't a steward, I'd just made a bad fashion mistake).  I was arrested, held for 12 hours and released on police bail.  Needless to say, the charges were later dropped.  I've been arrested sitting in a van, miles away from any hunts, to prevent a breach of the peace.

Maybe if you paid attention to people's experiences instead of thinking you know best all the time, you wouldn't feel the need to flounce off threads.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 16, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> you wouldn't feel the need to flounce off threads.


I have no idea why you and your tedious little acolytes have taken it upon themselves to follow me round.  But that is _precisely_ why I have to, as you so childishly put it, "flounce".

You really are pathetic.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 16, 2007)

Acolytes?  Following you around?

You're fucking paranoid.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Aug 16, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> I have no idea why you and your tedious little acolytes have taken it upon themselves to follow me round.  But that is _precisely_ why I have to, as you so childishly put it, "flounce".
> 
> You really are pathetic.


i wanna be an acolyte i'm gonna fallow you around now 

...acolytes are those monsters with one eye right?


----------



## zygote (Aug 16, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> I have no idea why you and your tedious little acolytes have taken it upon themselves to follow me round.



Could it be that the subject matter is of interest to both of you, albeit from opposing viewpoints, rather than YOU being stalked (as it were).

If you wrote a post on Suburban about the best way to make a souffle I doubt very much that Blagsta (or his acolytes  ) would turf up and say you're spouting rubbish.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 16, 2007)

If detective boy thinks I'm stalking him, he's got delusions of grandeur.  I have far more interesting things to do with my time thanks

P.S.
I've always wanted some acolytes.  How do I get some?


----------



## Fruitloop (Aug 16, 2007)

If you pop up on every thread that involves protest, the police, criminal justice, etc etc - particularly putting what is pretty much the standard 'party line' that the govt is selling - then you can absolutely expect to be challenged on it every time. Fuckin' hell, it's like a WI meeting these days compared to what it used to be like.

The politics forums are passionate, heated and occasionally a bit (or a lot) ad hominem, but it's not meant personally, and we're all just as happy to shoot the breeze in the other forums. Don't take it to heart so much.


----------



## cantsin (Aug 17, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> I have no idea why you and your tedious little acolytes have taken it upon themselves to follow me round.  But that is _precisely_ why I have to, as you so childishly put it, "flounce".
> 
> You really are pathetic.



unbelievable .


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 17, 2007)

Corporal Jones says Detective Boy doesn't like it up him


----------



## fogbat (Aug 18, 2007)

You know, I rather thought he did 

(speaking as a big admirer of DB )


----------



## LX365 (Aug 18, 2007)

*Policing the police at climate camp*

Know this thread has gone somewhere else, but here is a report about what's been happening.

FIT Watch was set up a couple of months ago to oppose and monitor the activities of the Forward Intelligence Teams.  These are cops who routinely harass and intimidate protesters (for full background see www.fitwatch.blogspot.com).  Whilst we’ve had a presence at a couple of public meetings, Climate Camp has been our first opportunity to practice our tactics in a protest situation.

And it’s been working.  FIT are being made to feel uncomfortable.  They’ve been forced into a reactive situation and it is empowering because we have seized the initiative.

FIT Watch can be done by anyone and can be as passive or as confrontational as you wish.  Here are some tactics we have found to be effective:

1.	Holding large banners in front of photographers.  This is particularly effective with double sheets on sticks which can block a camera from a distance.  This is the least confrontational way of blocking photography.
2.	Taking photos of them.  They really don’t like this but it isn’t illegal.  With any photos it’s always good to either try and get the cop’s number in the shot, or note it down.  
3.	Following the FIT.  Pick a team and tail them.  Turn their tactics onto them – everything time they send a text message look over their shoulder, listen to their phone conversations, look at what they’re writing in their notebooks.
4.	Watch out for group huddles, especially with senior officers and go and unobtrusively stand by them.  This disrupts their briefings and there’s always the possibility you might learn some useful information.
5.	Upload any information gathered about the FIT to www.fitwatch.blogspot.com or email to defycops@yahoo.co.uk
6.	Put yourself physically in the way of the camera men by standing constantly in front of the camera and constantly shadowing them.  This has been the most confrontational tactic used so far and has therefore been the one people have been arrested for.  However it has also been possible to do this without arrest.

CAUTIONARY NOTE: ANY ACTION INVOLVING THIS LEVEL OF PROXIMITY TO FIT TEAMS MEANS THEY WILL TRY AND ENGAGE YOU IN CONVERSATION.  DO NOT ANSWER THEIR QUESTIONS.

Two people have been arrested for Obstructing the police in the course of their duty this week.  They were both charged and pleaded not guilty.  Any witnesses should contact defycops@yahoo.co.uk

There have been many rumours as to why the FIT teams made their incursions into camp on Tuesday night.  Some people say it was a response to being pissed off with FIT Watch, others that it was a test to see how we would react.  Another theory is they were trying to kick something off as shown by the presence off vans of TSG and ambulances.

However they weren’t expecting the strong response from the camp and violently pushed, kicked and hit people.  A combination of strength of numbers and people willing to push them back forced them off site and people felt empowered by this victory.  However it was not the non violent victory reported in many places.  People rightly acted in self defence and we would not have got them off site if we had simply walked towards them with our hands in the air as has been described in some places.  Some people did raise their hands, but this was only after the cops had backed off the site.

FIT Watch is working, but we need more people.  The next big event is DSEi and it’d be great if people carry on the FIT Watch tactics.


----------



## Thora (Aug 18, 2007)

I love the Fit Watch spotter card on the website   H is my favourite.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 18, 2007)

Thora said:
			
		

> I love the Fit Watch spotter card on the website   H is my favourite.



Some have a 'thing' for A. Any names yet?


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 18, 2007)

LX365 said:
			
		

> Know this thread has gone somewhere else, but here is a report about what's been happening.
> 
> FIT Watch was set up a couple of months ago to oppose and monitor the activities of the Forward Intelligence Teams.  These are cops who routinely harass and intimidate protesters (for full background see www.fitwatch.blogspot.com).  Whilst we’ve had a presence at a couple of public meetings, Climate Camp has been our first opportunity to practice our tactics in a protest situation.
> 
> ...



Very good - keep it up.


----------



## winjer (Aug 23, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> The activities of FIT teams do not involve physical force, not least because they would usually have no power to use any such force.


They often do involve physical force though, I suggest you have a very limited experience of their practical rather than theoretical activity.









> They basically take pictures and notes of things happening in public places.


You're neglecting the other half of their duties - the oracle watches and the magnet...


----------



## editor (Aug 23, 2007)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> The politics forums are passionate, heated and occasionally a bit (or a lot) ad hominem, but it's not meant personally, and we're all just as happy to shoot the breeze in the other forums. Don't take it to heart so much.


Good advice. 

I think we are fortunate in having detective boy  contribute to this site, by the way. He's provided some excellent advice and police insights, even if I don't agree with his personal opinion on many subjects.


----------



## Miss-Shelf (Aug 23, 2007)

I'm a bit of a newbie to all this - I could do with a cop spotter parade

like a dorling kindersly book with pics of spotting what type of cop is which

ok I've got a basic idea but clarification would be good.


----------



## Miss-Shelf (Aug 23, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> Good advice.
> 
> I think we are fortunate in having detective boy  contribute to this site, by the way. He's provided some excellent advice and police insights, even if I don't agree with his personal opinion on many subjects.




I appreciate his input


----------



## winjer (Aug 23, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> But, the power of arrest only comes when a constable has isued a warning to the person concerned and they continue


Nope, you're out of date on that one, repealed by SOCPA 2005, no warning is required any more.




			
				TheLaw said:
			
		

> (1)
> The Public Order Act 1986 is amended as follows.
> [...]
> (5)In section 5 (harassment, alarm or distress), omit subsections (4) and (5).


http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?Activetextdocid=2086937

Those subsections being:




			
				TheLaw said:
			
		

> (4)  A constable may arrest a person without warrant if—
> (a)he engages in offensive conduct which [F1 a] constable warns him to stop, and
> (b)he engages in further offensive conduct immediately or shortly after the warning.
> (5) In subsection (4) “offensive conduct” means conduct the constable reasonably suspects to constitute an offence under this section, and the conduct mentioned in paragraph (a) and the further conduct need not be of the same nature.


http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?ActiveTextDocId=2236961

(The POA on that site is not yet updated)


----------



## llantwit (Aug 24, 2007)

FIT get about, don't they?
They were at a small demo/photo call for the anti military academy at St Athan's in the Vale of Glamorgan last night Wasn't a demo - mor of a recce really. Not publicly advertised, but there they were with their big lenses, covering their faces when they were photographed.
Pics to be sent to the Fitwatch crew soon.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 25, 2007)

winjer said:
			
		

> They often do involve physical force though, I suggest you have a very limited experience of their practical rather than theoretical activity.


I suggest you don't know what the fuck you are talking about and you are under the misapprehension that all officers engaged in public disorder are FIT teams.  Your very interesting picture does not show a FIT team.  They are not.  The FIT teams (as the name - Forward Intelligence Team - suggests) gather, er, forward intelligence.  

They are NOT responsible for maintaining order.  They are partially comprised of civilian photographers who have no powers of a constable anyway.  They include some officers, but their function is to note and record intelligence, not to deal with disorder.  They MAY sometimes be accompanied by officers from other units for protection if attacked, especially if being used behind the front lines in actual disorder, but they will not be taking any lead role in dealing with disorder.


----------



## Thora (Aug 25, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> Your very interesting picture does not show a FIT team.


The one on the right is definitely FIT.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 25, 2007)

winjer said:
			
		

> Nope, you're out of date on that one, repealed by SOCPA 2005, no warning is required any more.


You're quite right about the repeal of the power of arrest, I had overlooked that ... but the practice of a warning in cases of minor disorder has continued as good practice because s.6 of the Public Order Act (the requirement for a person to intend, or be aware that, his actions to be threatening, etc.) still exists.

The power of arrest has been replaced by the general power of arrest for constables in s.24 PACE (as amended by s.110 SOCPA) which now covers all offences and which requires conditions to be satisfied before arrest is exercised.


----------



## winjer (Aug 25, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> You're quite right about the repeal of the power of arrest, I had overlooked that ... but the practice of a warning in cases of minor disorder has continued as good practice because s.6 of the Public Order Act (the requirement for a person to intend, or be aware that, his actions to be threatening, etc.) still exists.


Having witnessed a dozen arrests for it in the past week, this 'good practice' does not extend to Oracle and TSG units.


----------



## LX365 (Aug 25, 2007)

If FIT teams have no powers, would you care to explain the huge numbers of assaults an arrests i have experienced and witnessed as a result of their actions.  Not one of my arrests has led to conviction (so much for this great intelligence).  Shall I try explaining that to one of them next time 'cos I don't think it'd get me very far.

And there is a more fundamental problem, FIT teams are not used simply to gather information.  They are they to intimidate and harass people.  Intelligence may be their official remit but I think you should listen to the people who deal with and experience their tactics on a regular basis.


----------



## winjer (Aug 25, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> I suggest you don't know what the fuck you are talking about and you are under the misapprehension that all officers engaged in public disorder are FIT teams.


You are under the misapprehension that sitting in an armchair reading _The Job_ makes you an expert on the real world activities of FIT teams. While I recognise that you may be knowledgeable about other areas of policing and law, you are out of your depth here.



> Your very interesting picture does not show a FIT team.  They are not.  The FIT teams (as the name - Forward Intelligence Team - suggests) gather, er, forward intelligence.


Oh really? The officer on the right is CO5446 of the public order intelligence unit, on this occasion assigned to Oracle 12, the two officers in the centre are XB91 and XB92 (Rooney), on this occasion in Oracle 37.

Here are two other shots of XB91:









The first shot is from this year's Mayday, the second is from the G8 in Scotland, the police photographer visible in both is Neil Williams, the other officer on the left in dark blue in the second is the unfortunate NI666. In all three photos XB91 is theoretically engaged in 'gathering intelligence', and on all three occasions was observed by me with my own eyes engaging in public disorder.



> They are NOT responsible for maintaining order.


No argument there, their role appears to be very much maintaining disorder, a prime example being the 'riots' around Princes Street Gardens in Edinburgh on July 4 2005 - the first recorded violent incident was in St Andrew's Square when around a dozen of the London FIT drew their ASPs and charged...


----------



## smokedout (Aug 25, 2007)

Thora said:
			
		

> The one on the right is definitely FIT.



agreed, he followed me to the offie on mayday


----------



## Thora (Aug 25, 2007)

smokedout said:
			
		

> agreed, he followed me to the offie on mayday


He's my favourite one.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 26, 2007)

winjer said:
			
		

> Having witnessed a dozen arrests for it in the past week, this 'good practice' does not extend to Oracle and TSG units.


In my experience of public disorder including the deployment of such units, arrests are often not for s.5 POA offences (though that may end up as the charge) but for the more serious offences of s.4 (fear or provocation of violence) or s.3 (affray) or assaults / obstruction of police.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 26, 2007)

LX365 said:
			
		

> If FIT teams have no powers, would you care to explain the huge numbers of assaults an arrests i have experienced and witnessed as a result of their actions.


I didn't say they had no powers.  I pointed out that many of the members of FIT teams (in fact the central ones to the teams purpose) are, in fact, civilian photographers and, as such, they do not have the powers of constables.  And I pointed out that their role was not one of using force, but of gathering intelligence.  If, whilst doing so, they are obstructed / attacked, the officers will, of course, use such powers to use force as they have ... but usually simply to withdraw safely unless a decision has been made to support the FIT team with other units (such as the TSG proper).  I have simply been making the point that people seem to be attributing all sorts of activities to "FIT teams", when much of it is done by other units.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 26, 2007)

LX365 said:
			
		

> They are they to intimidate and harass people.


I have already said that if that is the case then those people should sue.  Known activists are targetted, sure (that is the whole point, after all).  But the activities (which involve a clear interference with the right to privacy) must be proportionate and necessary otherwise the courts will find them unlawful.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 26, 2007)

winjer said:
			
		

> You are under the misapprehension that sitting in an armchair reading _The Job_ makes you an expert on the real world activities of FIT teams.


Fine.  If that's what you think, great.  Live in your own little world where you are all-seeing and all-knowing.  Bye.

(But, for your information, my comments are based on my experience of working with FIT teams as a bronze commander and specialist public disorder SIO and on speaking with current officers on a regular basis.  I haven't read "The Job" for years.)


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 26, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> I have already said that if that is the case then those people should sue.  Known activists are targetted, sure (that is the whole point, after all).  But the activities (which involve a clear interference with the right to privacy) must be proportionate and necessary otherwise the courts will find them unlawful.



Following people around and photographing them is intimidating.  Funnily enough, they don't like it when the same is done to them.  They tend to get quite agressive ime.


----------



## lights.out.london (Aug 26, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> my comments are based on my experience of working with FIT teams as a bronze commander



How many lengths of the baths do you have to do to get "gold"? We had to do a mile without touching the bottom of the pool with our feet.


----------



## TAE (Aug 26, 2007)

Has anyone here ever seen a policeman arrest another policeman during a protest ?


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 27, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> I have already said that if that is the case then those people should sue.  Known activists are targetted, sure (that is the whole point, after all).  But the activities (which involve a clear interference with the right to privacy) must be proportionate and necessary otherwise the courts will find them unlawful.



Bollox - they are seriously into intimidation. You are spouting the usual 'isn't the law wonderful rubbish rhetoric'. Your record and cds are stuck, and they were tired and stale to begin with.


----------



## lights.out.london (Aug 27, 2007)

I remember D-B writing a while ago that people should sue/complain about (aggressive/inappropriate) police behaviour at things like demos, protest marches and football matches. I said it then and I'll say it again - being a police officer really really does distort one's view of reality. 

*D-B* : why do your colleagues remove their numbers and badges of rank when policing mass-attended events etc? I've even seen officers [in a certain sea port] remove their numbers on Friday and Saturday nights when rattling around town.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 27, 2007)

lightsoutlondon said:
			
		

> I remember D-B writing a while ago that people should sue/complain about (aggressive/inappropriate) police behaviour at things like demos, protest marches and football matches. I said it then and I'll say it again - being a police officer really really does distort one's view of reality.
> 
> *D-B* : why do your colleagues remove their numbers and badges of rank when policing mass-attended events etc? I've even seen officers [in a certain sea port] remove their numbers on Friday and Saturday nights when rattling around town.



Let me guess...


----------



## lights.out.london (Aug 27, 2007)

I was kind of being rhetorical, but yet allowing enough yardage for D-B to use lots of these -


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 27, 2007)

lightsoutlondon said:
			
		

> I was kind of being rhetorical, but yet allowing enough yardage for D-B to use lots of these -



DB needs to be regularly wound up and let go, and then smashed. It's his democratic right to spout pro police rhetoric, and our democratic right to take the piss and/or ignore him


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 27, 2007)

I would like to see phots of the FIT team turned over and spread eagled on the ground, prefereably in colour to get the full effect  THey are long overdue a serious taste of their own medicine and I hope the Anarchist death squad force will give them a good hiding


----------



## lights.out.london (Aug 27, 2007)

Would make a great front cover ...


----------



## TAE (Aug 27, 2007)

I would like to see photos of the FIT team members who have broken the law being arrested (on the spot) by the other police officers, but I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 27, 2007)

lightsoutlondon said:
			
		

> I remember D-B writing a while ago that people should sue/complain about (aggressive/inappropriate) police behaviour at things like demos, protest marches and football matches.


So what do you suggest, then?  The ONLY way of policing the police is if people persistently complain of unlawful and inappropriate behaviour.  

I fail to see why you ridicule such a view.  Don't just slag it off (I _know_ this is a difficult concept for "activists" ...  ), suggest a viable alternative.


----------



## LX365 (Aug 27, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> So what do you suggest, then?  The ONLY way of policing the police is if people persistently complain of unlawful and inappropriate behaviour.
> 
> I fail to see why you ridicule such a view.  Don't just slag it off (I _know_ this is a difficult concept for "activists" ...  ), suggest a viable alternative.



Complaining is generally a lot of hassle for very little result.  It IS worth doing because the record of the complaint goes on the cop's record, but the reality is it means fuck all.  More importantly it doesn't offer any remedy to those who have suffered trauma as a result of their actions.

The only way to police the police is through direct action and by building a culture of distrust and suspicion of the police.  

Initiatives such as FIT Watch, aim both to take direct action against the police, turning their tactics back upon them.  It probably should be expanded to some kind of Police Watch which encourages people to intervene everytime they see cops hassling someone.  

On a personal note, this is the most empowered I've felt in years dealing with the FIT.  They are far more uncomfortable with what we're doing now then they ever have been by complaints or civil cases.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 27, 2007)

LX365 said:
			
		

> It probably should be expanded to some kind of Police Watch which encourages people to intervene everytime they see cops hassling someone.


Hardly a wise suggestion, bearing in mind a passer-by hasn't got any idea what the "hassle" has originated from.  Observing police behaviour, witnessing what has happened and questioning / reporting it later, fine.  

Intervening in something you know nothing about - no, a recipe for disaster.


----------



## Miss-Shelf (Aug 27, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> Hardly a wise suggestion, bearing in mind a passer-by hasn't got any idea what the "hassle" has originated from.  Observing police behaviour, witnessing what has happened and questioning / reporting it later, fine.
> 
> Intervening in something you know nothing about - no, a recipe for disaster.




i stopped and asked someone if they were ok when they were being stopped and searched at mile end the other day.  they had already given their name by then.  It doesn't hurt to check that someone is ok and witness what is happening.  I didn't intervene and stood back.  Just made eye contact with the stoppee (as it were) and asked if they were ok.  It can be lonely and embarrassing to be stopped in the street for no good reason.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 28, 2007)

Miss-Shelf said:
			
		

> It can be lonely and embarrassing to be stopped in the street for no good reason.


What you did sounds OK.

And it reminds me of another thing to bear in mind - does the person realy want some random passer-by knowing their business?  (One guy I was in the process of nicking for a robbery (fitted description, credit cards found on search) certainly didn't when someone demanded to know what he was being arrested for ... "Look mate, just fuck off.  It ain't none of your business ..." as he said).  And for that reason the police officers would be reluctant to get into much detail.


----------



## lights.out.london (Aug 28, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> I fail to see why you ridicule such a view.  Don't just slag it off (I _know_ this is a difficult concept for "activists" ...  ), suggest a viable alternative.



I'm not sure that what I've written constitutes 'ridicule'. And I'm not sure it's for me to suggest a viable alternative. 

Regardless - the Establishment will always cover for its own and for the class traitors who support their _status quo_. Perhaps the only way to fight police brutality/violence/heavy handedness is to meet like with like.


----------



## lights.out.london (Aug 29, 2007)

e2a - I may have the opportunity to test the cops complaints procedures. BTP at London Bridge yesterday (see mugging thread on main forum). If I decide to make a complaint, I'll let you know how I get on.


----------

