# sort of victory for fairford types



## Pickman's model (Feb 19, 2004)

the judgment in the judicial review said that gloucestershire police acted unlawfully in detaining the people who went from london to try to demonstrate at fairford last march.

interestingly, the gloucestershire police seem to think that activists aren't genuine protestors! 

can't add links at the moment. 

will try later, or you could google for fairford!


----------



## chegrimandi (Feb 19, 2004)

report 

or here

here


----------



## ringolevio (Feb 19, 2004)

Was down at the RCJ this morning, missed hearing the decision though as I had to get into work.

Ho hum.


Pretty good result, I think; though it seems strange - and somewhat inconsistant - that turning us away from the base was viewed as legal.

Wtf?

Think that particular ruling may well be appealed.

There's reports on Indymedia, but the site seems to be down atm; here's one from the Beeb though - 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/gloucestershire/3502199.stm



ah, chegrimandi beat me to it!


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 19, 2004)

I was at the hearing this morning but couldn't hear fuck all cos I'm deaf in one ear and badly muffled in the other   

But from what I can gather it was a bit of an odd decision

They were wrong to stop our freedom of movement but right to stop us from protesting or something like that, but don't listen to me I may have mis heard/interpreted


----------



## Col_Buendia (Feb 19, 2004)

Does this mean that (after the discussion Montevideo posted on the thread about the anti-monarchists being awarded the £80k from the Met) that the Fairford people are now in a position to sue the cops for this?

Nice decision though, good to see a chink of light now and again. Shame about the other bits of it that upheld the legality of the police's actions - the press release from Bindmans that is on Indymedia states that they will be appealing that, iirc.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 19, 2004)

yeh - people can sue the filth for damages now. but it may be some time till pay day cos of the likely appeals against elements of the judicial review.


----------



## blamblam (Feb 19, 2004)

what anyone who was detained and turned back can sue now?

Fuckin ell there were about 300 of us!  

*ka-ching!*!


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 19, 2004)

Col_Buendia said:
			
		

> - the press release from Bindmans that is on Indymedia states that they will be appealing that, iirc.




Yeah they said they would appeal but it was also decided in court that the police could appeal against the case as well but their barrister (an evil looking cow) was far from sure about if they would or not.


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 19, 2004)

^^^....and it's up to the Gloustershire chief cuntstuble if they do appeal or not.


----------



## our-streets (Feb 19, 2004)

icepick said:
			
		

> what anyone who was detained and turned back can sue now?
> 
> Fuckin ell there were about 300 of us!
> 
> *ka-ching!*!



 

Its a good job the police also got us all on tape... it'll help prove who was there if/when they get sued!


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 19, 2004)

our-streets said:
			
		

> Its a good job the police also got us all on tape... it'll help prove who was there if/when they get sued!


if you enlarge the fairford video footage of me, you may see £ signs in my eyes!


----------



## blamblam (Feb 19, 2004)

our-streets said:
			
		

> Its a good job the police also got us all on tape... it'll help prove who was there if/when they get sued!


lol good thinking.

I was pissed off I missed that jubilee demo...


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 19, 2004)

i was at the jubilee demo. but i didn't get nicked.


----------



## newbie (Feb 19, 2004)

Pleased to see my worst fears weren't entirely justified and that British justice is as fine and impartial as I always knew it should be, but usually isn't.  (he said, waiting for the lawyers to read the judgement in detail, because the headline spin in these things often conceals a nasty little sting in the tail).


----------



## flimsier (Feb 19, 2004)

It sounds kind of confusing, but good at first sight.


----------



## montevideo (Feb 19, 2004)

sorry to be the dark cloud in the silver lining & everything but i think it's not going to work in our favour long term.

Still mightily pissed off with the liberals that they chose this course of action. It serves no-one apart from their own particularly selfish desire to see 'justice done'. The implications to this are as far reaching as they are damaging.

Shame really.

Yes, there will be appeals, yes we will have to wait a fuck load of time for our money, yes we will sue. Like i say, just pissed off at the moment. Make more sense later.


----------



## General Ludd (Feb 19, 2004)

Fuck. I got there myself and so didn't get detained and so instead of getting shitloads of much needed money I got to listen to people sing 'all we are saying, is give peace a chant' surrounding by hundreds of riot cops. Bastards!


----------



## jerseymonkey (Feb 19, 2004)

Does anyone know the name of the case as I want to read the ruling and it'll be a lot easier to find if I know the name. From what I can hear it sounds like a bit of a fudge.


----------



## freethepeeps (Feb 19, 2004)

Jane Laporte seems to have been the actrivist that the test case centred on - if that helps at all.



Hee hee - just checked the Fairford website - it's *Laporte v. The Chief Constable of Gloucestershire Police *


----------



## jerseymonkey (Feb 19, 2004)

Thanks very muchly, will save me a lot of effort - didn't know they had a website!


----------



## freethepeeps (Feb 19, 2004)

jerseymonkey said:
			
		

> Thanks very muchly, will save me a lot of effort - didn't know they had a website!



Ooops   

http://www.fairfordcoachaction.org.uk/case/


----------



## General Ludd (Feb 19, 2004)

According to the spokesperson from the police they just interviewed on radio 5, one of the main reason people were detained was 'for their own safety - we were protecting them'. Cunt.


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 19, 2004)

What a complete wanker!

I was feeling positive this morning but now this have seemed to of taken a turn for the worst....but the soliciter seemed quite upbeat


----------



## october_lost (Feb 20, 2004)

> Items removed by police from the coaches included masks, white overalls, scissors, five shields and body armour.


Err...what were you people planning to do..?


Keep up the good work!


----------



## freethepeeps (Feb 20, 2004)

For those who haven't seen the  Judgement  yet.  :-/


----------



## blamblam (Feb 20, 2004)

What is it people (monty?) are pissed off about? 

Is it cos it says the claimant wasn't saying that the action of detention related to section 60 etc. were lawful?
What implications could this have for the Mayday 2001 case?


----------



## freethepeeps (Feb 20, 2004)

icepick said:
			
		

> What is it people (monty?) are pissed off about?
> 
> Is it cos it says the claimant wasn't saying that the action of detention related to section 60 etc. were lawful?
> What implications could this have for the Mayday 2001 case?



The judge seemed to rule out a connection:



> I understand that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner is concerned with other proceedings arising out of a police containment operation in London on 1st May 2001. This court indicated during the course of the hearing that it would confine its observations to the facts of the present case, and I do so.



Para6 of the ruling


----------



## flimsier (Feb 20, 2004)

They're pissed off because they can't say 'I told you so' IMO.

Some people never ever admit they were wrong.


----------



## freethepeeps (Feb 20, 2004)

flimsier said:
			
		

> They're pissed off because they can't say 'I told you so' IMO.
> 
> Some people never ever admit they were wrong.



How were they "wrong" ?

What is your point?


----------



## flimsier (Feb 20, 2004)

Maybe 'wrong' was the wrong word, but IMO the people who went for the JR were right to do so, as shown by the outcome.

One person at the main meeting (who abstained) and a number since have suggested this was the wrong thing to do (as lots of others believed before thoroughly discussing their concerns) and I think these people are therefore 'wrong'.

icepick asked why they were pissed off, I was replying.


----------



## freethepeeps (Feb 20, 2004)

flimsier said:
			
		

> Maybe 'wrong' was the wrong word, but IMO the people who went for the JR were right to do so, as shown by the outcome.
> 
> One person at the main meeting (who abstained) and a number since have suggested this was the wrong thing to do (as lots of others believed before thoroughly discussing their concerns) and I think these people are therefore 'wrong'.
> 
> icepick asked why they were pissed off, I was replying.



So, what has the JR, in your opinion achieved?


----------



## The Black Hand (Feb 20, 2004)

flimsier said:
			
		

> Maybe 'wrong' was the wrong word, but IMO the people who went for the JR were right to do so, as shown by the outcome.
> 
> One person at the main meeting (who abstained) and a number since have suggested this was the wrong thing to do (as lots of others believed before thoroughly discussing their concerns) and I think these people are therefore 'wrong'.
> 
> icepick asked why they were pissed off, I was replying.



Monty has already pulled you (or people like you) up for your description of events leading up to the JR - your meeting was held AFTER the other one decided the opposite... As it happens I've had a brief look at the ruling and I still don't think you were right to do so    After all, the point is that the police break the law & JR 's mean fuck all, especially in crisis situations when emergency powers come in. THough on plenty of occasions short of the emergency powers the police have shown themselves willing to break the law. Oh liberals, if only your rulers respected the law as much as you do


----------



## flimsier (Feb 20, 2004)

Just to clarify. I wasn't there. I've just been interested in the case and have heard reports back.

Monty left the meeting before the discussion.

You've not said anything the negative the JR has resulted in. The publicity in itself is a good thing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 20, 2004)

flimsier said:
			
		

> Maybe 'wrong' was the wrong word, but IMO the people who went for the JR were right to do so, as shown by the outcome.


eh? the ends justify the means? i'm fucking chuffed they got a remotely reasonable ruling: this does *not* justify undertaking a risky legal strategy, which if it had resulted in a slightly different judgment could easily have resulted in these tactics being used - quite lawfully, and without legal recourse - against all sorts of people. to be frank, i don't believe that the result, which is by no means final, in any way justifies the risks inherent in pursuing going for a judicial review.


----------



## lost property (Feb 20, 2004)

Er, Black Hand, to clarify.  There were two legal meetings after March 22 last year.  The first was to discuss the options.  A lot of the meeting was taken up with people saying what had happened to them on the day.  Interesting enough, but fairly repetitive and took up a lot of time.  

There was a decision to meet the following week, with people turning up with more info about the different options as there were discrepancies between the views of the two solicitor firms consulted (Bindmans and Moss & Co).  

The second meeting was the one to *decide* legal strategy.

After a lot of discussion it was decided that we seemed to have nothing to lose.  If we lost, the police carry on doing what they always do.  

Well, we won on detention and have had some very favourable media coverage highlighting the human rights abuses that go on in the so-called "free world".  We did lose on being turned away from the demo, but we can appeal, and in the meantime, the police continue to try and frustrate our ability to protest.

The ruling definitely has implications for the May Day cases.  We were "only" detained for a few hours.  Whereas people were kept in Oxford Circus for much longer.

The judges confined themselves to dealing with the facts of the Fairford case, I assume, because it would not have been possible to do much more within the time set aside for the hearing (a day and a half).  

They spent a long time on Article 5 (Right to Liberty & Security) and the circumstances under which this freedom can be denied - see paras 44, 45 & 46 of the ruling and the Human Rights Act to unravel it.

They ruled that detention, for those suspected of having committed an offence or about to abscond, "cannot be for long" to comply with Art 5(1)(c).  How long this can happen, without arrest, depends on the facts of the case.

But read para 47.  He says (I think, although the grammar is confusing) that "even if there had been an immediately apprehended breach of the peace to justify transitory detention...the circumstances and length of the detention...were wholly disproportionate to the apprehended breach of the peace." 

Anyway, I think it will affect the May Day cases and the Met's barrister certainly seemed more concerned than Glos's barrister about appealing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 20, 2004)

lost property said:
			
		

> Er, Black Hand, to clarify.  There were two legal meetings after March 22 last year.  The first was to discuss the options.  A lot of the meeting was taken up with people saying what had happened to them on the day.  Interesting enough, but fairly repetitive and took up a lot of time.
> 
> There was a decision to meet the following week, with people turning up with more info about the different options as there were discrepancies between the views of the two solicitor firms consulted (Bindmans and Moss & Co).
> 
> ...


eh? one meeting "to discuss the options" and one to "decide legal strategy"? there were only three options! first, to do nothing. second, to sue the police (whether individually  or _en masse_) or to go for a judicial review. a judicial review could only be an interim step towards suing for damages: and had it gone entirely against us, it would have made suing the police for this - or any future similar detention - impossible. it was a high risk strategy, which i don't feel was worth the risk. 

but what this second meeting sounds like is an entire reversal of the conclusions of the first! 



> Anyway, I think it will affect the May Day cases and the Met's barrister certainly seemed more concerned than Glos's barrister about appealing.


can precendents, or judicial review judgments, apply retrospectively? i doubt it!


----------



## lost property (Feb 21, 2004)

Not really sure what the problem is here.  But to answer pickman's:



> eh? one meeting "to discuss the options" and one to "decide legal strategy"? there were only three options!



I don't know what kind of meetings you go to, but trying to reach a consensus between thirty or so people takes a fair while.  There was no consensus reached at the first meeting, which is why people agreed to go away and come back with more info.  It's hardly the fault of the grey-haired (and not so grey) "liberals" if all those against JR excluded themselves from the second meeting and didn't pass their wishes on to someone who did attend.

On the point about "high risk strategy" are you just talking about the risk of foregoing damages if the JR was lost?  Or about the risk of setting a precedent in law?

I was just pissed off with the number of times I was on a demo and the police seemed to be getting away with preventing people from demonstrating. I'm glad of all the coverage because if nothing else it publicises the fact that this happens.  It happened in the Jubilee Bus case and the Met decided to settle, rather than get an unfavourable ruling.  

Yes, there are arguments that the police will probably find other ways to stifle protest, but I'm in no doubt that the Met were very concerned about the impact the Fairford JR would have on them.  This means they clearly think it will have an impact on how they behave in future and/or that it will have an impact on the May Day cases.

As for your comment:



> can precendents, or judicial review judgments, apply retrospectively? i doubt it!



The May Day/Oxford Circus cases won't be heard until June.  The JR was a clarification of how the Human Rights Act interacts with common law powers to prevent a breach of the peace.  The Human Rights Act was already part of domestic law on May Day 2001 and the police should have taken it into consideration then just as they should have done on 22 March last year, so the notion of the ruling being "retrospective" doesn't apply.


----------



## flimsier (Feb 21, 2004)

You knows it, LP. Great post, safe  [/kidspeak]


----------



## flimsier (Feb 21, 2004)

Sorry, just to make it clear, I think that really was a great post.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 22, 2004)

lost property said:
			
		

> On the point about "high risk strategy" are you just talking about the risk of foregoing damages if the JR was lost?  Or about the risk of setting a precedent in law?


both the damages and the precedent.


----------



## lost property (Feb 23, 2004)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> both the damages and the precedent.



Ok, well my argument remains that there is no risk with the legal precedent as the police regularly turn people away from demos, as well as detaining them to prevent a breach of the peace.  We are merely setting a marker in the ground.  

Are you seriously saying that the judgement as it stands will make policing of demos *worse* for protestors?  IMHO, policing of demos in the last few years has been almost unbearable.  If you're not prepared to stand in a small enclosed space behing a metal barrier, then you end up being surrounded by cops.  The judgement has now put some parameters on this.  

I'm not saying this is a huge victory, but it is a victory.  And it's always good to have a bit of good news doing the rounds.

As for it screwing people's compensation, that argument doesn't wash either.  If the judges in the Judicial Review wouldn't rule that the detention was unlawful, why would it be ruled worthy of damages in a civil claim?

As it happens, even the Met's official line was that the detention on the coaches didn't constitute a lawful containment, so it was very unlikely that we would have lost outright.  

Nor can it be reasonably argued that the JR is delaying compensation.  IF we go to appeal, it might delay compensation by another year, but compare that to the May Day cases which have taken over three years to get to court.  The police only settled very recently over the Jubilee Bus case and that was probably to get it in before our JR ruling, as well as avoid a ruling themselves. (Just a reminder that it isn't just JR's that set precedents.)


----------



## The Black Hand (Feb 23, 2004)

Lost property said "It's hardly the fault of the grey-haired (and not so grey) "liberals" if all those against JR excluded themselves from the second meeting and didn't pass their wishes on to someone who did attend."  Of course they share responsibility - was their somebody else in the room taking all these elitist decisions? You can't make 'collective decisions' with the other sides' arguments not there. 

I hear all your points about it being a 'victory' - leaves a sour taste in my mouth mind. 

Unlike the jubilee bus 23... I can't see how the detention on the bus in transit in this case would have led to legal precedent either, if you were dropped off the bus early you were in the cells so time wise it was nothing. The police were fucked in that case cos they ignored the law regarding arrest for breach of the peace, not over the time it took.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 24, 2004)

lost property said:
			
		

> Ok, well my argument remains that there is no risk with the legal precedent as the police regularly turn people away from demos, as well as detaining them to prevent a breach of the peace.  We are merely setting a marker in the ground.


 if the police "regularly" deny people the right to free assembly and the right to demonstrate, you can presumably give me a few examples of that. there is "no risk" _now_ as regards the legal ruling: but what if the court had ruled that the police had acted fairly and lawfully? would you be happy being involved in a case which established a ruling detrimental to the interests of protestors?



> _Are you seriously saying that the judgement as it stands will make policing of demos *worse* for protestors?  IMHO, policing of demos in the last few years has been almost unbearable.  If you're not prepared to stand in a small enclosed space behing a metal barrier, then you end up being surrounded by cops.  The judgement has now put some parameters on this._


no: i did not say or mean to intimate that the judgment as it stands would be inimical to the interests of demonstrators. how do you suggest it makes it any better? there were "some parameters" on the enclosure of demonstrations before - logistical ones leap unbidden to mind - now there may be new ones. 



> _As for it screwing people's compensation, that argument doesn't wash either.  If the judges in the Judicial Review wouldn't rule that the detention was unlawful, why would it be ruled worthy of damages in a civil claim?_


eh? had the judges ruled for the police, then where would compensation claims be founded? if the police were found to have acted lawfully and properly, where would the basis for a compensation claim have been? ffs! how hard did you work at being this arsy?



> _As it happens, even the Met's official line was that the detention on the coaches didn't constitute a lawful containment, so it was very unlikely that we would have lost outright._


er... did the met _put_ people in the coaches and did the met _initiate_ the entire thing? i think not! my claim, and i imagine yr's, will be against gloucestershire police, in the first instance, with perhaps (i'm not yet sure) subordinate claims against the other constabularies for carrying out an unlawful order. any liability or oppobrium which may attach to the met as far as i'm concerned would be minor.



> _Nor can it be reasonably argued that the JR is delaying compensation.  IF we go to appeal, it might delay compensation by another year, but compare that to the May Day cases which have taken over three years to get to court.  The police only settled very recently over the Jubilee Bus case and that was probably to get it in before our JR ruling, as well as avoid a ruling themselves. (Just a reminder that it isn't just JR's that set precedents.)_


how do you square the firat two sentences in that paragraph, which seem to contradict each other? and i am not too fussed about the speed with which other people get _their_ compensation. the police, as you note, settled recently with the lucky people from the jubilee - i would hope that legal antix don't unduly delay my own compensation.


----------



## lost property (Feb 24, 2004)

Ok, you've lost me a bit here.  I sincerely think that there was little more we could have done that meeting to be inclusive - ask anyone that bothered to stay for the meeting.




			
				The Black Hand said:
			
		

> Lost property said "It's hardly the fault of the grey-haired (and not so grey) "liberals" if all those against JR excluded themselves from the second meeting and didn't pass their wishes on to someone who did attend."  Of course they share responsibility - was their somebody else in the room taking all these elitist decisions? You can't make 'collective decisions' with the other sides' arguments not there.



1. I can't be accountable for someone else's unwillingness to make their opinion heard.  As long as that there is a forum for people to express their opinion and that forum is properly publicised, I'm not sure if much more can be done.  In this case, everyone who had been at the previous meeting knew the details of the meeting, and it was also passed round a number of email lists.

2. Not being psychic, I certainly had no idea that a bunch of people who had the same view point had decided not to come to the meeting (or to walk out before the beginning) without passing their views on to someone else to put forward on their behalf.  In fact, I would never have known, unless I had read about it on these boards.  



> I hear all your points about it being a 'victory' - leaves a sour taste in my mouth mind.



Maybe you've got a lemon in your mouth     .  But, assuming people get their compensation (not such a big assumption), not sure how the JR is less of a celebration than the Jubilee case.



> Unlike the jubilee bus 23... I can't see how the detention on the bus in transit in this case would have led to legal precedent either, if you were dropped off the bus early you were in the cells so time wise it was nothing. The police were fucked in that case cos they ignored the law regarding arrest for breach of the peace, not over the time it took.



I'm not sure what bus you're talking about here.  Or what point you're trying to make.  The circumstances of the bus and coach cases aren't the same, and I don't think I've said that.  

The judges ruled in the Fairford case that the police could not detain us at all for breach of the peace as there was not an imminent breach of the peace (para 47: "there was no immediately apprehended breach of the peace by her sufficient to justify even transitory detention").  However, they said that in some circumstances transitory detention could be justified, but it would have to be very brief. 

So, in our case, the police also ignored the law regarding breach of the peace. 

While I'm here, I might as well say that people need to make clear what their views are for going for an appeal.  We have a public meeting at SOAS on Thursday night and you might want to come along to that if you were on the coaches and want to make your point.  (I'n not just talking about TBH).  

If you can't make the meeting, then please PM me if you want to talk about it further.

Cheers.


----------



## lost property (Feb 24, 2004)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> ffs! how hard did you work at being this arsy?



Actually I think I was born this way.  

Anyway, you have sneaked this post in while I was responding to TBH's post and now I don't have time.  I'm not going to list all the demos I've been on, but please don't try and tell me you've never been present when a copper has abused his/her position, threatened arrest for basically nothing etc, stopped you from getting somewhere for no good reason.  I'm not saying that we should concern ourselves solely with these legalistic games, it's just one tactic.

If the courts had ruled that the police had acted fairly and lawfully, then they get to continue doing what they have been doing anyway.  I would have been a bit gutted, but not really as wouldn't expect much more from judicial system.  I really don't get what's lost.  

Am a bit confused about your point about compensation claims. On what grounds would you have been suing for damages?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 24, 2004)

theft, for a start. 

and _can_ you name a couple of times the police have turned people away from demonstrations?


----------



## 888 (Feb 24, 2004)

I was there, but I'd rather be detained for 6 hours than attend a legal meeting. Or read anything with legal terms in it, so I still have no idea what the situation is.


----------



## The Black Hand (Feb 24, 2004)

Lost property - i still don't agree with your defence of the packed meeting that decided to go it there way (very SWP or Socialist Party it has to be said) and ignore the conclusion of the first meeting (from what i understand)

There were different technical breaches of the law with regard to the cases. The Fairford one was actually LESS important re the breach of the peace issue than the Jubilee one because orders came from very high to break the law in that case. Probably about equal in terms of acting against peoples' right to protest.

The jubilee case was important cos the police were caught breaking the law and abusing people's right to protest in a very authoritarian manner, and held out to dry for it. As far as I know everything was held as collectively and openly as possible, with progressive politics throughout. 

In the Fairford case though... 


And i do rate the Jubilee case as more important than the Fairford one, though I appreciate it can be a shock to some liberals to be turned away from demonstrating once in their life. My word, wouldn't it have been instructive if they were striking Yorkshire or Welsh miners having to face that bullshit day in day out in 1984.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 25, 2004)

lost property said:
			
		

> Ok, well my argument remains that there is no risk with the legal precedent as the police regularly turn people away from demos, as well as detaining them to prevent a breach of the peace.  We are merely setting a marker in the ground.


i asked yesterday if you could name an occasion or two when the police turned people away from a demonstration (at fairford, as you may recall, we were prevented from joining the demo, not turned away from it). yr silence indicates that you can't think of a single instance of this occurring, as does yr subsequent contribution:





> _please don't try and tell me you've never been present when a copper has abused his/her position, threatened arrest for basically nothing etc, stopped you from getting somewhere for no good reason._


_can_ you come up with a couple of examples to substantiate yr allegation about cops turning people away?

and cops turning people away from demonstrations seems to me a different point from not allowing people to reach the demonstration in the first place. you indicate that the fairford ruling _won't make any difference_ to people being turned away from demonstrations - why go through all the kerfuffle then?



> _ 2. Not being psychic, I certainly had no idea that a bunch of people who had the same view point had decided not to come to the meeting (or to walk out before the beginning) without passing their views on to someone else to put forward on their behalf. In fact, I would never have known, unless I had read about it on these boards. _


so didn't you wonder why 60 of the 120 people on the coaches weren't involved? didn't you have the slightest curiousity about why they weren't associated with the judicial review action?


----------



## rednblack (Feb 25, 2004)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> yr silence indicates that you can't think of a single instance of this occurring, as does yr subsequent contribution:[/i]_can_ you come up with a couple of examples to substantiate yr allegation about cops turning people away?



er no. the silence indicates someone who doesnt have the time to post on here obsessively like us


----------



## flimsier (Feb 25, 2004)

edited again.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 26, 2004)

thankfully!


----------



## flimsier (Feb 26, 2004)

for you, yes.

edited to add: 

I was going to write about the number of times you ask for a reply, sometimes by setting a time limit, then assume that because someone hasn't met _ your _ time limit, (sometimes not explicitly stated) you assume it means whatever you want it to, rather than letting people make their own minds up, or understanding that people are often not interested in what you post.

Quite pathetic really.

I put this post in an edit because I can't be bothered to play your game of getting the last word in. You're too good at it, but it makes for shit posts.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 26, 2004)

if you had anything to add to this discussion, you could have done just now. so i take it you don't.​


----------



## The Black Hand (Feb 26, 2004)

Got to say well done Pickman - seen off another part time lightweight


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 26, 2004)

flimsier said:
			
		

> for you, yes.
> 
> edited to add:
> 
> ...


i can only recall one time i asked for a reply within a certain time, and that was from gumboot. maybe you could refresh my memory?


----------



## rednblack (Feb 26, 2004)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> i can only recall one time i asked for a reply within a certain time, and that was from gumboot. maybe you could refresh my memory?



er on this thread you havent asked for a time limit simply imposed an arbitrary cut off of 24 hours when the poster wasnt even on line to challenge it. slightly unfair i think.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 26, 2004)

lost property had already given _an_ answer to what i'd asked. it's now a couple of days and no reply. so i suppose i'll have to wait a bit to find out - if they return to that thread.


----------



## flimsier (Feb 26, 2004)

Yes, you imposed a time limit on me finding you an Islamophobic comment when I rarely posted on here. Then you asked me 24 hours later to apologise for calling you Islamophobic. I saw the posts about three days after that and you'd assumed a whole range of things from my 'silence'.

It followed me putting a definition up here. I don't recall the whole nature of the posts.

IIRC, you demanded something similar from bolshiebhoy about two months later.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 26, 2004)

wouldn't happen now, when you pop up every five minutes! is it still half term, with all teachers posting in the day?


----------



## flimsier (Feb 26, 2004)

Nah, I just do it at lunchtime. Free periods. etc. It means I end up staying even later at night before leaving. In fact, you're right, I've got shit-loads to do.

You're right, it'd be unlikely to happen now. At the time though, I thought it was funny that you didn't PM me.


----------



## lost property (Mar 1, 2004)

Well, this is the first time I've had a chance to have a look at this thread since my last post, which can only be a good thing in my opinion (apologies flim and rnb, don't mean to suggest you don't have a life, and apologies also for resurrecting a 3-day old thread).

The Black Hand, seeing as (I think you're saying) you weren't at the meeting you're arguing about, I would suggest that the information you've received about the decision reached at the end of it is wrong.  The conclusion was there was no conclusion, except to go away and get more info for people to make a proper decision a week later.  

Frankly all this talk about "liberals" seems, as I said to Montevideo, nothing more than name-calling to satisfy your own sense of purity to the revolutionary cause.  At times I feel the "liberal" thing has bordered on ageism.  People can decide on a strategy (such as JR), despite their misgivings about the judicial system and their feelings on the futility of engaging with it, in order to gain some limited progress.  It seems sometimes fairly arbitrary, or at least less than logical, where people decide they will or won't engage with an (economic) system they detest, in order to make life under it more bearable.  Sometimes the reform vs revolution makes me think that "revolutionaries" would sooner support voting for the Tories over voting for a RESPECT or IWCA candidate (not an either/or question I know and I'm not advocating voting for any of them), in order to increase economic iniquity and (hopefully) create the conditions to bring on the revolution, but maybe that's another thread.

To Pickman's model about the demo, hmmm, I'm not sure if I can think of an exact parallel to Fairford (about being turned away).  As it was, there was a coach from Swindon turned away the same day as us.  There was also the Reclaim the Bases demo outside Northwood last year, where the designated area for the demo was bloody miles away from the entrance to the base and people who went in were forced to stay there until they were marched away to the tube station.  I would argue that it breaches Articles 10 and 11 and that the police wouldn't have been able to turn us away for BotP.

Most of the demos I was thinking of, I must admit, it would probably be fairer to say that the Section 12s (or 14s or whatever) were just bloody ridiculous, so it's possible that the police would say that the right to lawful assembly was there, albeit in our eyes extremely restricted.  

But I'm also thinking of times when they take down placards, block other people's view of banners etc, force you away from where you want to be (citing ridiculously tenuous obstruction of the highway), generally shove people around, threaten you with arrest for taking notes or something else perfectly lawful, say there's a section 12, 14 or 60 in place and then find out that there isn't or in other ways frustrate protest (again Articles 10 & 11).  You can PM me if you really want dates and times, but I'm not going to list here every demo I've been on, as much because of paranoia as a dodgy memory.  I'd be tempted to go for Judicial Review for all these things, except that the evidence wouldn't be on my side (usually my word against a copper's).


----------



## The Black Hand (Mar 2, 2004)

*Lost ploterly*

The info about that meeting was from Montivideo who i trust implicitly. I still think you are wrong and it was an elitist decision to go for jr.

As for being ageist i say bollocks, as for being judgementally against liberals and liberalism - then yes. HANDS UP - I'm as GUILTY AS FUCK.

As for purity - that's also bollocks. The class struggle and i are both as impure as each other I very often post on here pointing out the stupid and irrelevant purity of others...


----------



## thedishbench (Mar 3, 2004)

*Clarification about the two meetings*

Ok, I attended both meetings and it happens that I have the notes from both of the meetings.

- Thursday 27th March at LARC - (aprox 15 people attending, and a solicitor from Moss and Co answered questions)

- Thursday 3rd April at LARC but moved to the Davenant Centre due to a double booking (aprox 25 people attending)

The notes were not circulated, but they were taken down.  It was agreed that the minutes would not be sent out, but that they would be brought to the consequent meeting.  At present all the organising is done via e-mail and notes are no longer formally taken at the very infrequent meetings.  What follows are accounts of the meetings with some excerpts from the notes included in quotes.

The first meeting ended with an agreement that the Moss solicitor would get more information to help the group to decide between civil/judicial review cases.  It was felt that 15 people didn't represent enough of the passengers, and that people would "_contact as many people as possible who were on the coaches but not at the meeting and ask them to attend the next meeting_."  The date and time of the meeting was arranged to best suit the present group.  Some people were frustrated that a decision had to be postponed until the next meeting (a week of delay) because an application for Judicial Review must be commenced within the first 3 weeks after an event.

The second meeting was held in the evening on 3rd April 2003, at the Davenant Centre, London (after a double booking at LARC meant that the meeting had to be moved at the last minute).  There were approximately 25 people in attendance, and some people were consulted by phone who were not able to attend.  

"_The meeting started with general discussion of different legal firms and legal options.  The main points were:
-A letter had been received from Moss and Co, suggesting that coach passengers follow separate personal claims through the firm, not a judicial review.
-Bindman's were interested in the case and seemed to think it had a good chance of success.  Information from Bindman's was distributed to the people at the meeting.  Bindman's had sent out letters to the police forces involved in our detention, which would be the first stage of bringing it to a judicial review.  This did not commit the group to going with Bindman's at this stage_."

In addition to the information sent along by Bindmans, information was distributed that gave details/background about Bindmans, Moss and Co and Liberty (all gathered from their websites).

"_The group discussed the pros and cons of a judicial review.  The issue of what happens if the case fails - people thought the situation would then not be much different than the current situation.  It would still be possible to take private legal action in the event of a judicial review failing_."

"_The group discussed the events of 22 March, and people wanted to clarify which parts of the police's actions Bindman's were challenging.  People said that the whole event should be challenged, the stopping and searching as well as the "escort" back to London_. "

"_The group voted to go ahead with a judicial review.  There was only one vote against, and the voter said as long as he could go forward with a private case he didn't much mind what the group did and would go with the majority._"

"_The group voted unanimously to go with Bindman's.  There was an objection that Liberty had not had time to respond, and it was clarified that in the event of a judicial review Liberty and any other interested legal firms/organisations would be able to join in._"

"_A list was circulated for people to put their email addresses (or, failing that, mobile numbers)."  _ This was for the purpose of arranging future meetings.

"_There was discussion about how to contact other coach passengers not at the meeting.  One of the coach co-ordinators explained that they had contacted all the passengers whose contact details he had a record of.  There had been a problem with the mobile phone, but all of them should have received the info by now_."

These excerpts from the notes of the second meeting reasonably accurately reflect what I remember (I didn't take down any of the notes at either meeting, or suggest that we take down notes - now, I'm glad that we did take down notes).  What happened at the second meeting was we waited a long time, as people arrived late using the slightly confusing map left at LARC.  When it seemed that everyone had arrived that was going to, we started probably 40 minutes late.  There was a lot of general discussion of the issues, and everyone had a chance to speak at any point.  Eventually, it seemed a good point to poll the group and see if we could all agree on a decision.  There was near concensus on the questions (see notes above), and consequently we ended up going with Bindmans as a judicial review case.  It seemed like a fair process, there were notices about the meeting posted on e-mail lists, people were phoned by the coach collective, and a big effort was made by a lot of people to have a descent turn out at the second meeting.  There wasn't some liberal pressure group forcing the outcome.  People prepared for the meeting in various ways.  The information distributed on behalf of Bindmans came as a result of a group of 6 passengers contacting Bindmans independently, just as the consultation from Moss and Co solicitor resulted from passengers independently contacting them.

At present there are about 70 coach passengers involved in the legal campaign.  Anyone who wishes to join the legal campaign can e-mail info@fairfordcoachaction.org.uk or ring the phone number at the bottom of the front page of the website http://www.fairfordcoachaction.org.uk

We don't make legal campaign meeting times public because we don't want press/police/non-passengers in attendance.  If people want to participate and we can verify that they were coach passengers, they are welcome to participate in the campaign.  There are no spokespeople, or formal organisational roles in the group.  I'm speaking about my own experiences in this e-mail, and they don't necessarily reflect the experiences of others in the legal campaigning group.

Cheers,
thedishbench

[Final note - why do I have the notes?  Good question - I'm not entirely sure.  At the second meeting I was acting as the liason with Bindmans.   We opted to go with JR with Bindmans, and the person who had typed up the first meeting notes passed them on to me.  It was felt that the next set of notes should go to the same place.  As far as I recall we haven't taken formal notes at any other meetings - but the subsequent meetings have mostly been less important meetings about one or another aspect of the campaign - press work, organising the film showings, etc.]


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 28, 2005)

i have recently seen two police books which make reference to the legal precedent established by the fuckwitt'd judicial review & appeal. and neither of them in a good way.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 3, 2012)

Anyone still kicking about here that was on the coaches?


----------



## Nice one (May 3, 2012)

not really a kick abouter here, but was on the coaches


----------



## DrRingDing (May 3, 2012)

Nice one said:


> not really a kick abouter here, but was on the coaches


 
You know about the deadline tomorrow?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2012)

DrRingDing said:


> You know about the deadline tomorrow?


Which deadline's that then?


----------



## DrRingDing (May 3, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Which deadline's that then?


 
For the offer.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2012)

DrRingDing said:


> For the offer.


And this offer would be...


----------



## DrRingDing (May 3, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> And this offer would be...


 
Compo.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2012)

You're talking bollocks. There's been no such offer made.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2012)

DrRingDing said:


> Compo.


you coming back on this or what?


----------



## DrRingDing (May 3, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> You're talking bollocks. There's been no such offer made.


 
Er yes there has. I've got the letter in my hand.


----------



## thedishbench (May 4, 2012)

I haven't heard about any new offers.  I'd be interested to hear more about it but off list.  You can get in touch via my e-mail - the dish bench at yahoo dot com (but without any spaces).  -J


----------



## DrRingDing (May 4, 2012)

thedishbench said:


> I haven't heard about any new offers. I'd be interested to hear more about it but off list. You can get in touch via my e-mail - the dish bench at yahoo dot com (but without any spaces). -J


 
I've sent you a message on fb earlier.


----------



## thedishbench (May 4, 2012)

Ah, yes.  I forgot to check fb.  Now I have. thanks, I'll reply there!


----------



## thedishbench (May 4, 2012)

For coach folks who are watching this.  A few years ago, most of us had offers.  These "new offers" are intended to be sure that everyone still claiming has an offer.  There's nothing different about this offer than the ones previously offered, it's just supposed to reach the people who didn't get one. The decision to accept or reject should be made based on the individual's own needs and wishes, and won't have any impact on the success/failure of other claims.

Note: I recommend not discussing specifics about the litigation on a public forum like this, since public discussion of the claims has a potential to harm them.

-j


----------

