# Ban 'kettling'



## londheart (Dec 26, 2010)

Hi,

I wanted to draw your attention to this important petition that I recently signed:

"Ban Kettling"
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/ban_kettling/

I really think this is an important cause, and I'd like to encourage you to add your signature, too. It's free and takes just a few seconds of your time.

Thanks!


----------



## dylans (Dec 26, 2010)

londheart said:


> Hi,
> 
> I wanted to draw your attention to this important petition that I recently signed:
> 
> ...


 
Yes cus petitions are so effective aren't they?


----------



## londheart (Dec 26, 2010)

dylans said:


> Yes cus petitions are so effective aren't they?


Sometimes.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 26, 2010)

That's not how law is decided. I thought you'd know that with your interest in the legal system.


----------



## bi0boy (Dec 26, 2010)

I know the Supreme Court and also the European Court take petitions into account when coming to verdicts. Petitions, especially online ones, are more important to them than evidence, or their interpretation of the law.


----------



## londheart (Dec 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> That's not how law is decided. I thought you'd know that with your interest in the legal system.


 I do agree, in principle. But in this particular case, it makes the difference between the concern looking like a general one, or else allowing the image of street protest to be one of the preserve of a hardcore minority who can then be dismissed as unrepresentative mob.


----------



## londheart (Dec 26, 2010)

bi0boy said:


> I know the Supreme Court and also the European Court take petitions into account when coming to verdicts. Petitions, especially online ones, are more important to them than evidence, or their interpretation of the law.


 This is irony, right? 
But in this instance, petition size is potentially a measure of public concern and grievance, which could therefore go for or against the plaintiffs, if the judges decide to take it into account (which they may well do, it giving them a chance to poke Blighty).


----------



## dylans (Dec 26, 2010)

londheart said:


> This is irony, right?
> But in this instance, petition size is potentially a measure of public concern and grievance, which could therefore go for or against the plaintiffs, if the judges decide to take it into account (which they may well do, it giving them a chance to poke Blighty).


 
Shove your pathetic petition up your arse you hopeless labourite cunt. Public concern and grievance will be made perfectly clear on March 26th when London witnesses the biggest political riot in British history.


----------



## londheart (Dec 26, 2010)

dylans said:


> Shove your pathetic petition up your arse you hopeless labourite cunt. Public concern and grievance will be made perfectly clear on March 26th when London witnesses the biggest political riot in British history.


1. It isn't originally mine, nor a Labour petition, but a Young Greens one, initiated by people who were actually in the thick of it (as opposed to forum blaggers).
2.  Go and impale yourself on a police truncheon, then, if that's the height of your ambition.


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 26, 2010)

londheart said:


> petition size is potentially a measure of public concern and grievance


 
LOL – just looked at the last page of the signatures to that – several from ‘anonymous’  and one from Margaret Thatcher proclaiming herself to be a chocolate teapot.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 26, 2010)

londheart said:


> 1. It isn't originally mine, nor a Labour petition, but a Young Greens one, initiated by people who were actually in the thick of it (as opposed to forum blaggers).
> 2.  Go and impale yourself on a police truncheon, then, if that's your highest ambition.


 
Is that why you wanted to join the met?


----------



## londheart (Dec 26, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> LOL – just looked at the last page of the signatures to that – several from ‘anonymous’  and one from Margaret Thatcher proclaiming herself to be a chocolate teapot.


 That's correct, claphamboy - you don't have to publicly divulge your true identity/status.


----------



## londheart (Dec 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Is that why you wanted to join the met?


No, I was worried about going into debt, at the time. Also, it's a job, and an essential one at that. I wasn't picturing myself on the other end of it, if that's the way your thoughts were going.


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 26, 2010)

londheart said:


> That's correct, claphamboy - you don't have to publicly divulge your true identity/status.



And therefore it will never be taken seriously as a 'measure of public concern and grievance'.

Complete waste of time.


----------



## londheart (Dec 26, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> And therefore it will never be taken seriously as a 'measure of public concern and grievance'.
> 
> Complete waste of time.


Despair not, claphamboy: petition signatories are verified by the recipient. I suspect the job's already taken.


----------



## bi0boy (Dec 26, 2010)

Where's the facebook group and is it trending on twitter already?


----------



## audiotech (Dec 26, 2010)

Metropolitan Police face legal action for kettling children during tuition fees protest.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/26/metropolitan-police-lawsuit-student-protest


----------



## londheart (Dec 26, 2010)

bi0boy said:


> Where's the facebook group and is it trending on twitter already?


 Some of us remain virtual innocents in these matters. But do muck in.


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 26, 2010)

audiotech said:


> Metropolitan Police face legal action for kettling children during tuition fees protest.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/26/metropolitan-police-lawsuit-student-protest


 
Well good luck to them, but as 'kettling' has been declared legal and not in breach of the Human Rights Act by the High Court, Court of Appeal and Law Lords, I reckon they are facing an uphill struggle.


----------



## audiotech (Dec 26, 2010)

"Kettling children" legal?.


----------



## londheart (Dec 26, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Well good luck to them, but as 'kettling' has been declared legal and not in breach of the Human Rights Act by the High Court, Court of Appeal and Law Lords, I reckon they are facing an uphill struggle.


Appeals are, by definition, a sort of uphill struggle. Fortunately some of the best legal brains from Britain and elsewhere have already made an uphill journey to the highest court in the continent, to receive them.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 26, 2010)

bi0boy said:


> Petitions, especially online ones, are more important to them than evidence, or their interpretation of the law.


From subsequent posts I _presume_ you are being ironic ...


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 26, 2010)

audiotech said:


> "Kettling children" legal?.


 
Children? lol. 

There're 3 protesters in this action, I think you would hard pressed to get anyone to agree that 17 & 19 year-olds are 'children', whilst some may describe the 15 year-old as such, most wouldn't. Minor yes, child no.


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 26, 2010)

londheart said:


> Appeals are, by definition, a sort of uphill struggle. Fortunately some of the best legal brains from Britain and elsewhere have already made an uphill journey to the highest court in the continent, to receive them.



What over 'Kettling'?

Can you provide a link for that, I would be interested in taking a look, I've only read up as far as a case going to the Law Lords.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 26, 2010)

audiotech said:


> "Kettling children" legal?.


Containment has been acknowledged as a legal tactic.

HOW containment is used will make the difference between whether it's use on any particular occasion is found to be lawful or unlawful.

The fact that "children" are involved is _entirely_ irrelevant (except for the media and criticis of the tactic to appeal to the emotions of those who read their biased reports, obviously ...).


----------



## flash (Dec 26, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Children? lol.
> 
> There're 3 protesters in this action, I think you would hard pressed to get anyone to agree that 17 & 19 year-olds are 'children', whilst some may describe the 15 year-old as such, most wouldn't. Minor yes, child no.


 
This totally. Let's face it, if the court judgment goes in favour of the protester's let's be honest it will be a green-light for every anarchist to grab a minor as a shield almost, before attending public protests. I know the 3 in questions weren't "borrowed" but you don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out how some would use this if the decision went that way. The police have a difficult job to do, and admittedly they do have to be accountable, but the alternatives to this could be a lot worse.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 26, 2010)

flash said:


> .... if the court judgment goes in favour of the protester's ....


It won't.

Prediction:

1. The case will confirm that containment is a legal tactic as and when justified and necessary
2. The case will lead to the Courts giving some guidance as to what is necessary for it to be "justified and necessary" - though this is unlikely to be very detailed
3. The case will lead to the Courts stressing that several aspects need to be focused on if the containment is used - including duration; welfare of those contained; management of people leaving the containment for good reasons - and that the maintenance of the containment must be constantly reviewed taking these aspects into account
4. That case will lead to the Courts emphasising that the containment must be lifted as soon as the reasons which justified it being used no longer exist
5. That the Courts will make no mention whatsoever of whether or not it can be used in the case of "children" (though they may comment that if children are involved then the necessity test is likely to be more difficult to achieve)

Bookmark this post.  You heard it here first.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 26, 2010)

flash said:


> This totally. Let's face it, if the court judgment goes in favour of the protester's let's be honest it will be a green-light for every anarchist to grab a minor as a shield almost, before attending public protests. I know the 3 in questions weren't "borrowed" but you don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out how some would use this if the decision went that way. The police have a difficult job to do, and admittedly they do have to be accountable, but the alternatives to this could be a lot worse.



You've got a wild fantasy life!


----------



## flash (Dec 26, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> It won't.
> 
> Prediction:
> 
> ...



I didn't say that it would - key words are "justified and necessary" the bottom line is when shit gets wild, they are going to do unpleasant things and unfortunately some "nice" people may get caught up in that. Think we are going to see a lot of that in the next 12 months though. It is the difficult one  though, if you don't want to risk being kettled (which lets be honest is going to increase in frequency as protest marches step up, due to the increase in cuts, which decrease the forces numbers, hence increasing necessity) - don't attend marches (or deviate from routes). Let's be honest it's all cyclical, and 2011 will be the poll tax riots revisited.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 26, 2010)

flash said:


> ... and 2011 will be the poll tax riots revisited.


Further prediction:

No it won't.


----------



## flash (Dec 26, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Further prediction:
> 
> No it won't.


 
Did I pick the wrong bit of public disorder coming round again? (these things do tend to go in circles though - like most things).


----------



## londheart (Dec 26, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> The fact that "children" are involved is _entirely_ irrelevant (except for the media and criticis of the tactic to appeal to the emotions of those who read their biased reports, obviously ...).


What? No emotions? Defective-boy sounds like the real McCoy!


----------



## londheart (Dec 26, 2010)

*Defective-boy misreads the Human Riots Act*



detective-boy said:


> management of people leaving the containment for good reasons - You heard it here first.


'Freedom of Movement and Expression' seem pretty damn good reasons to me!


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 26, 2010)

londheart said:


> 'Freedom of Movement and Expression' seem pretty damn good reasons to me!


 
And your point is?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 26, 2010)

londheart said:


> What? No emotions? Defective-boy sounds like the real McCoy!


 
Oh god.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 26, 2010)

londheart said:


> What? No emotions? Defective-boy sounds like the real McCoy!


 
Another fake maybe? That'll be three you've spotted in a day. Me, dylans and detective boy.


----------



## londheart (Dec 26, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> And your point is?


Kettling goes against basic human rights - a child can see that (and compulsory schooling, FTM).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 26, 2010)

londheart said:


> Right now I believe someone is taking the matter to the European Court. Altho justice isn't decided by petitions, the plaintiffs are going to look like Messrs. Irrelevant on the day unless they have mass backing.


 
In which case asking people to send snail mail to their MPs questioning the practice of kettling would be somewhat more use than asking them to sign an e-petition. It's harder to ignore letters than electronic communications.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 26, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> From subsequent posts I _presume_ you are being ironic ...


 
Wow, he's sharp as a razor, this one!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 26, 2010)

flash said:


> This totally. Let's face it, if the court judgment goes in favour of the protester's let's be honest it will be a green-light for every anarchist to grab a minor as a shield almost, before attending public protests.


Yes, because that's what anarchists are notorious for doing, isn't it? I can't remember a single protest where anarchists haven't used human shields.

You mug.



> I know the 3 in questions weren't "borrowed" but you don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out how some would use this if the decision went that way. The police have a difficult job to do, and admittedly they do have to be accountable, but the alternatives to this could be a lot worse.


 
Your username is ironic, isn't it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Another fake maybe? That'll be three you've spotted in a day. Me, dylans and detective boy.


 
What, are you a phoney, Butch?
And to think it took a self-proclaimed "forum radical" to winkle you out, too!


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 26, 2010)

londheart said:


> Kettling goes against basic human rights - a child can see that



Shame the High Court, Appeal Court & Law Lords* have taken a somewhat different view on 'Kettling', based on the fact that no rights are absolute and tend to come with conditions attached, as any child caught shouting fire in a crowded theatre whilst claming their rights to 'freedom of speech' in defence would discover. 

* still waiting on a link to back-up your claim that this issue has been taken to the European Court of Human Rights, as I am actually interested in reading up on that case.



> (and compulsory schooling, FTM).



Not sure WTF this has to do with the price of fish TBH.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Dec 26, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> 1. The case will confirm that containment is a legal tactic as and when justified and necessary


Containment is not a synonym for kettling, so a defense for containment is not a defense of kettling. Also the defense that a tactic is legally permissible is not a defense for all instances of that tactic.

Because a police officer is allowed to use a truncheon, does not in itself mean all use of a truncheon is justified.

We are now passing the phase of these protests of breathless 24 hour news coverage, hysteria driven newspaper editorials and emotionally charged forum postings.

Now the professionals are moving in. It is going to be in the hands of the members of the Metropolitan Police Authority, the Home Office Select Committee and for many years to come, the courts. An audience that is not only able to discern the nuance of differing situations but one that will insist on a highly nuanced explanation for each use of the tactic. 

1pm on the 24th of November is the moment from which the choices of senior police officers will be under scrutiny as to whether they became part of the escalating cycle of tensions that lead to the 10/12 civil disturbance. The point at which people will argue that the police surrendered their moral authority and the trust of the large bulk of the crowd, most of whom were novices to protest. This is the argument the police will have to be making in the cold calm of committee rooms and courts, that the decision to prevent the protest reaching parliament square and the kettling of the protesters by early afternoon was a price worth paying to surrender the trust of the majority of non violent protesters, a loss of trust that led directly to the chaotic protest of November 30. 

And the question of our lost little police van once more comes back into view. It was ever so convenient on the 24th to announce it had become surrounded by violent thugs and the officers had chosen to abandon it and incredibly walking through the hostile crowd was a safer option than remaining in the vehicle and either driving back to police lines or waiting for sufficient forces to extract the lost lambs safely. The credibility of the Mets perception of events over the month of protests may yet hang on that van. Throwing doubt on the polices narrative will be invaluable in demonstrating that the police were not acting as neutral facilitators of protest but actors on behalf of the government to undermine the legitimacy of the protests in the public eye. 

And of course the horse charge that never happened. The good Mr Stephenson announced to the MPA that no police horse charge had taken place on the 24th. This is the same chap who will soon be sitting in front of the same committee explaining why that was not actually a horse 'charge' on the youtube videos and the committee will be sitting in judgment of his veracity, an attribute that will be crucial in conveying to them the police view on the events of that month of protests. 

When I first seen the iconic "10 past 10 in the kettle" photograph I had an intense sense of 'gotcha'. The moment when I knew the difference between containment and kettling would be an easy sell to judges, politicians and the public. The kettle was physically and metaphorically pushed to its logical conclusion of a "black hole of Calcutta on the Thames". It was not about preventing people from dispersing but assaulting them and herding them into a physically unacceptably small space. A picture that can show even the tories just how provocative and inflammatory kettling actually is.

We now have the leisure of lots and lots of time and many committees and courts to examine the choices of the month of protests.

Good luck with sticking to the line that 'containment can be justified sometimes'.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 26, 2010)

londheart said:


> Defective-boy misreads the Human Riots Act
> 
> 'Freedom of Movement and Expression' seem pretty damn good reasons to me!


londheart proves they haven't got a fucking clue what they are talking about:

1. There is NO "freedom of movement"
2. Freedom of Expression arises from Article 10 ECHR.  Article 10(2) reads:




			
				The ACTUAL European Convention on Human Rights said:
			
		

> The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, *in the interests of* national security, territorial integrity or *public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime*, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 26, 2010)

interesting typography


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 26, 2010)

ferrelhadley said:


> Containment is not a synonym for kettling, so a defense for containment is not a defense of kettling.


Yes.  It is.  As I have said a million times, just because you have invented an (extremely irritating) pathetic new cool and trendy name for something does NOT mean you have invented something new.  You haven't.



> Also the defense that a tactic is legally permissible is not a defense for all instances of that tactic.


No-one has said it is.  In fact, I and others have _quite specifically_ said that this particular instance _may_ be ruled unlawful for various reasons.

WHY are you pretending we haven't?  



> It was ever so convenient on the 24th to announce it had become surrounded by violent thugs and the officers had chosen to abandon it and incredibly walking through the hostile crowd was a safer option than remaining in the vehicle and either driving back to police lines or waiting for sufficient forces to extract the lost lambs safely.


Where was that ever officially announced?  I mentioned that it was a _possible_ explanation (but one I felt unlikely, it being more likely (but still not plain) that it had been parked by a serial deployed nearby before the crowd grew and then, as it became plain it needed to be moved, the driver with the keys couldn't be immediately found).

Please link to evidence of any official announcement.



> Good luck with sticking to the line that 'containment can be justified sometimes'.


There is _far_ more chance (in fact, almost 100% certainty) that the Courts will acknowledge that containment remains a perfectly lawful tactic.

Good luck with your hope that they won't.  Don't get too attached to that thought.  Don't want you topping yourself when it doesn't happen ... as it won't!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 26, 2010)

londheart said:


> Hi,
> 
> I wanted to draw your attention to this important petition that I recently signed:
> 
> ...


 
I'm not sure how much effect a petition signed by the 'kettle-ees' will have.


----------



## londheart (Dec 26, 2010)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights#Article_5_-_liberty_and_security

'Article 5 - liberty and security
Main article: Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Article 5 provides that everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. Liberty and security of the person are taken as a "compound" concept - security of the person has not been subject to separate interpretation by the Court.

Article 5 provides the right to liberty, subject only to lawful arrest or detention under certain other circumstances, such as arrest on suspicion of a crime or imprisonment in fulfilment of a sentence. The article also provides the right to be informed in a language one understands of the reasons for the arrest and any charge against them, the right of prompt access to judicial proceedings to determine the legality of one's arrest or detention and to trial within a reasonable time or release pending trial, and the right to compensation in the case of arrest or detention in violation of this article.

    Steel v. United Kingdom (1998) 28 EHRR 603'


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 26, 2010)

Are there any Articles in the Convention about the right of people not to have their cars burned, their windows smashed etc?


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 26, 2010)

londheart said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights#Article_5_-_liberty_and_security
> 
> 'Article 5 - liberty and security
> Main article: Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights
> ...


Well done!  

You've actually found a _real_ Human Right to misunderstand.

Personally I prefer to go to the actual legislation rather than wikipedia for my information about what a Statute says ... 

If YOU did too, you would find that Article 1(c) reads:




			
				The ACTUAL European Convention on Human Rights said:
			
		

> (c)the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority *on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so[/b*


*

... and that is why a containment operation would be lawful.

It is also precisely why I have said that the length of this containment, and it's continuance beyond the anticipated disorder still being likely, will be (one of the reasons) why the police will have an uphill struggle convincing a Court it was entirely lawful.*


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 26, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Are there any Articles in the Convention about the right of people not to have their cars burned, their windows smashed etc?


 I'm so glad that you came back stronger and more relevant than ever. Some said that you couldn't do it. You showed them wrong.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I'm so glad that you came back stronger and more relevant than ever. Some said that you couldn't do it. You showed them wrong.


 
And I observe the fact that you remain at your constant level.


----------



## two sheds (Dec 26, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Are there any Articles in the Convention about the right of people not to have their cars burned, their windows smashed etc?


 
None about the right of people not to have their money stolen off them by crooked bankers, etc, either.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 26, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> And I observe the fact that you remain at your constant level.


 
Yeah, do fuck off.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 26, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Are there any Articles in the Convention about the right of people not to have their cars burned, their windows smashed etc?


Article 8 - Right to Respect for Private and Family Life would arguably cover that in part.  

Article 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR - Protection of Property - is precisely on the point ... "Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties."

The general principle of the positive obligation of the State to _proactively protect_ the rights of citizens (as well as the negative obligation not to breach them themselves) means that the police have a duty under Human Rights law (as well as UK general law) to prevent crimes taking place and people becoming victims.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Dec 26, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Yes.  It is.  As I have said a million times, just because you have invented an (extremely irritating) pathetic new cool and trendy name for something does NOT mean you have invented something new.  You haven't.






detective-boy said:


> There is _far_ more chance (in fact, almost 100% certainty) that the Courts will acknowledge that containment remains a perfectly lawful tactic.


Thats all very nice but containment is simply refusing to allow people out of an area for a short period of time. 

Kettling often includes the compression of the crowd by violence into smaller and smaller areas.
You conflate the two to argue on an internet forum. You state containment will never be ruled illegal then blithely skip past the mechanics of kettling. Nice for you. Time ticks away and the courts beckon.





> Where was that ever officially announced?


It was the line given to the press from the police. This is a rather interesting line to take, police spokespersons do not speak in an official capacity and only statements demarcated as official should be taken as so by members of the public involved in a public order event, the press and the political classes. Provides a great many people with greater latitude in their defence of any actions.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 26, 2010)

two sheds said:


> None about the right of people not to have their money stolen off them by crooked bankers, etc, either.


 
Ah yes: true. 

Best answer: let slip the Blac Blok, and overturn the system via broken windows on Oxford Street.


----------



## londheart (Dec 26, 2010)

From the petition: 'Name: Mary Holmes on Dec 25, 2010
Comments: On both occasions I've experienced this type of approach by the police the demonstration has been perfectly peaceful until the police decide to restrain everyone - often passers-by as well as demonstrators. Even so the vast majority remain absolutely peaceful but their attitude to the police inevitably changes.'


----------



## two sheds (Dec 26, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Ah yes: true.
> 
> Best answer: let slip the Blac Blok, and overturn the system via broken windows on Oxford Street.


 
Ah yes: true. 

Let slip the corporate lawyers. Which would you say was the greater crime - a few broken windows on Oxford street or collapsing the world's financial systems and stealing billions of pounds that poor people have to pay back?


----------



## flash (Dec 26, 2010)

Love the way this thread has progressed, act articles from the ECHR and use of a size 30-ish font. Given the strength of views to both sides of the argument I think it illustrates why there is a problem and why this will probably go on for a while.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 26, 2010)

two sheds said:


> Ah yes: true.
> 
> Let slip the corporate lawyers. Which would you say was the greater crime - a few broken windows on Oxford street or collapsing the world's financial systems and stealing billions of pounds that poor people have to pay back?



I'm saying that if your intention is to bring about the end to what you see as a corrupt and unfair system, breaking the shop windows of fellow proles seems an inefficient way to go about it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 26, 2010)

the proles who own windows of oxford street shops?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 26, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> the proles who own windows of oxford street shops?


 
Is the point eluding you?


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 26, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Is the point eluding you?


 
you have a point?


----------



## flash (Dec 26, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I'm saying that if your intention is to bring about the end to what you see as a corrupt and unfair system, breaking the shop windows of fellow proles seems an inefficient way to go about it.


 
but don't you see this is how they are striking back - get the system off guard by forcing them to kettle the masses in Parliament Square, whilst the elite go and put bricks through the windows of the flagship store owned by one of Britain's most efficient tax planning families. Of course there will be some minor fallout due to shrapnel damage but these things happen.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 26, 2010)

> Best answer: let slip the Blac Blok, and overturn the system via broken windows on Oxford Street.





> I'm saying that if your intention is to bring about the end to what you see as a corrupt and unfair system, breaking the shop windows of fellow proles seems an inefficient way to go about it.



Guess who both times?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 26, 2010)

Need a bit of prole solidarity for the  oxford street victims..anyone?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Guess who both times?


 
Oh boy: another 'content free' day from butchersapron.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Need a bit of prole solidarity for the  oxford street victims..anyone?


 
probably all sloaneys or tourists anyway.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 26, 2010)

flash said:


> but don't you see this is how they are striking back - get the system off guard by forcing them to kettle the masses in Parliament Square, whilst the elite go and put bricks through the windows of the flagship store owned by one of Britain's most efficient tax planning families. Of course there will be some minor fallout due to shrapnel damage but these things happen.


 
I just don't see how going out and breaking things, will somehow bring about social change.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 26, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Oh boy: another 'content free' day from butchersapron.


 
You used to be like a little lenny henry - what went wrong? All these shit posts.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 26, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I just don't see how going out and breaking things, will somehow bring about social change.


 
The point was your ignorance of the targets chosen - never mind the reasons.


----------



## flash (Dec 26, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I just don't see how going out and breaking things, will somehow bring about social change.


 
Neither do I - sorry I was being sarcastic.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 26, 2010)

They're prepared for the people who break things. The people who break things end up criminalized, marginalized, euthanized.

I look back at the decisions taken in the Civil Rights movement in the early sixties. A decision was made to forego violence, and to hit where it hurt, but to do it nonviolently. That is why things like the Montgomery Bus Boycott, or the Students Strike, were ultimately effective. They hit in unexpected places, in ways for which the system wasn't prepared. In one, it hit the pocketbook of the racist City Council; in the other, it created the image of thousands of elementary and high school children being carted off to prison. These things worked, and they worked without violence.


----------



## shagnasty (Dec 26, 2010)

Probably the only independent traders down oxford street operates out of a suitcase with a look out for the police !!del boy style!!


----------



## southside (Dec 26, 2010)

shagnasty said:


> Probably the only independent traders down oxford street operates out of a suitcase with a look out for the police !!del boy style!!


 
TiT?


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 26, 2010)

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/I/chapter/4



> 3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1(c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.
> 
> 4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.


----------



## two sheds (Dec 26, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> They're prepared for the people who break things. The people who break things end up criminalized, marginalized, euthanized.
> 
> I look back at the decisions taken in the Civil Rights movement in the early sixties. A decision was made to forego violence, and to hit where it hurt, but to do it nonviolently. That is why things like the Montgomery Bus Boycott, or the Students Strike, were ultimately effective. They hit in unexpected places, in ways for which the system wasn't prepared. In one, it hit the pocketbook of the racist City Council; in the other, it created the image of thousands of elementary and high school children being carted off to prison. These things worked, and they worked without violence.


 
Yes i agree with that. 

I do however totally understand why there was the .... i was going to say violence but most of the violence actually seemed to come from the police ... window breaking etc. I think it is a matter of proportionality - which is the larger crime?


----------



## IC3D (Dec 26, 2010)

I don't think the debate about the type of protest is so much the issue as much as the need for momentum, its a battle for minds and if it ends in violence or not is superfluous. If the police are in the way than thats their problem.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 26, 2010)

the civil rights movement, another sacred cow of the pacifists. About as true as ghandi's non violence I.e not so absolute and effective as preached by people who want to follow the simple line of violence= bad.


----------



## flash (Dec 26, 2010)

two sheds said:


> Yes i agree with that.
> 
> I do however totally understand why there was the .... i was going to say violence but most of the violence actually seemed to come from the police ... window breaking etc. I think it is a matter of proportionality - which is the larger crime?


 
What destruction of property or stopping the people that are trying to destroy the property (as that's your job) by any means as they significantly outnumber you?? Just trying to understand the logic......


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 26, 2010)

two sheds said:


> Yes i agree with that.
> 
> I do however totally understand why there was the .... i was going to say violence but most of the violence actually seemed to come from the police ... window breaking etc. I think it is a matter of proportionality - which is the larger crime?


 
I think it's about a cause, and the best way to achieve your ends. And sometimes, self-discipline is required.


----------



## two sheds (Dec 26, 2010)

flash said:


> What destruction of property or stopping the people that are trying to destroy the property (as that's your job) by any means as they significantly outnumber you?? Just trying to understand the logic......



Destruction of the property was a lesser offence than (a) the bankers stealing billions of pounds that has justified the class war that has been declared with all these cuts and (b) the mps who were given free education and now in the main are very comfortably off thank you very much voting to stop poor kids having free education. Also a lesser crime than the violence given out by the police when they were not being threatened - against that bloke in the wheelchair for example, and the woman who said that they had beaten her senseless. 

The logic ... 

My dad was a house painter. In the 60s he used to go to local council meetings and protest that council members used to award contracts to builders who had taken them out for slap up meals and given them veh nice presents on festive occasions. The builders used to put in painting quotes for a primer, couple of undercoats and a top coat. When they got given the job they ordered my dad and the other painters to just slap on a single coat and pocketed the difference. 

Nobody listened to my dad so he wrote to the local and national papers. Nobody listened then, either, so he went down the local council offices and threw a brick through the window. He got charged with damaging council property and fought the case himself. He pleaded that if there was a fire in a building it would be perfectly in order for someone to throw a brick through a window to draw attention to the fire, and that was what he was doing. He got found not guilty. 

I see the student protests in the same light tbh. They are bringing peoples' attention to a larger crime. Counter productive unfortunately because of the press we have in this country. The overwhelming majority of the protest was peaceful, those few incidents get blown up out of proportion so that people don't have to address the real issues.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Guess who both times?


 
An utter twat, perchance?


----------



## flash (Dec 26, 2010)

two sheds said:


> Destruction of the property was a lesser offence than (a) the bankers stealing billions of pounds that has justified the class war that has been declared with all these cuts and (b) the mps who were given free education and now in the main are very comfortably off thank you very much voting to stop poor kids having free education. Also a lesser crime than the violence given out by the police when they were not being threatened - against that bloke in the wheelchair for example, and the woman who said that they had beaten her senseless.
> 
> The logic ...
> 
> ...


 
Thanks for sharing your logic. I do genuinely appreciate your point's but I just don't think I will ever totally agree with your point of view. Either way I'm giving up as this is getting a bit off-topic and I'm going to bed as this board is doing my head in.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 26, 2010)

two sheds said:


> Destruction of the property was a lesser offence than (a) the bankers stealing billions of pounds that has justified the class war that has been declared with all these cuts and (b) the mps who were given free education and now in the main are very comfortably off thank you very much voting to stop poor kids having free education. Also a lesser crime than the violence given out by the police when they were not being threatened - against that bloke in the wheelchair for example, and the woman who said that they had beaten her senseless.
> 
> The logic ...
> 
> ...


 
And did council members stop accepting bribes, and builders stop pocketing unearned profits as a result?


----------



## two sheds (Dec 27, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> And did council members stop accepting bribes, and builders stop pocketing unearned profits as a result?



No, funnily enough they didn't. So what would you have done to stop it? 

Stood for parliament and swept all before you in a popular uprising that made you prime minister so you could legislate that everything worked properly afterwards and nobody was unhappy ever again? 

tosser


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 27, 2010)

two sheds said:


> No, funnily enough they didn't. So what would you have done to stop it?


 
Then I'm not understanding your logic. You say he wrote letters to the paper etc, with no effect. Then he threw a brick through a window, and was able to use the corruption as an explanation, preventing a conviction. But the corruption continued. 

So in other words, his act of violence did nothing to advance the cause of ending corruption, and he was lucky enough, this time, to dodge the bullet of a convction, criminal record, etc.

I don't see how this somehow endorses violence as an effective means of bringing about social change.


----------



## two sheds (Dec 27, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Then I'm not understanding your logic. You say he wrote letters to the paper etc, with no effect. Then he threw a brick through a window, and was able to use the corruption as an explanation, preventing a conviction. But the corruption continued.
> 
> So in other words, his act of violence did nothing to advance the cause of ending corruption, and he was lucky enough, this time, to dodge the bullet of a convction, criminal record, etc.
> 
> I don't see how this somehow endorses violence as an effective means of bringing about social change.



Answer my question first - what would you have done to stop the corruption?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 27, 2010)

theres a point in 'Pacifism as Pathology' that deals with exactly the sort of 'non violence=good violence= bad' simplicity approach. Pg 8 iirc.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 27, 2010)

two sheds said:


> Answer my question first - what would you have done to stop the corruption?


 
You brought up the example. What is it an example of?


----------



## two sheds (Dec 27, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> You brought up the example. What is it an example of?


 
It is an example of someone bringing attention to a greater crime by breaking a window. Given his defence of breaking a window to bring attention to the fire, he's not the fire brigade so he shouldn't be expected to put the fire out. He's hardly to blame if the fire brigade didn't bother to turn up. 

You've criticised the example. Now you say what you would have done instead that would have actually stopped the corruption at a stroke. Or are you saying it's useless to try to fight corruption so he shouldn't have bothered?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 27, 2010)

two sheds said:


> It is an example of someone bringing attention to a greater crime by breaking a window. Given his defence of breaking a window to bring attention to the fire, he's not the fire brigade so he shouldn't be expected to put the fire out.
> 
> You've criticised the example. Now you say what you would have done instead that would have actually stopped the corruption at a stroke. Or are you saying it's useless to try to fight corruption so he shouldn't have bothered?



What attention did he bring to it, aside from talking about it in court and getting himself out of a vandalism and public mischief charge?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 27, 2010)

I can't tell you of some different solution on those facts, because I don't know enough about how council estates work, whether the members are elected etc etc. But I've seen enough about protest in general to believe that usually, sporadic acts of street violence do nothing to remedy the problems they're supposed to be addressing.


----------



## two sheds (Dec 27, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> What attention did he bring to it, aside from talking about it in court and getting himself out of a vandalism and public mischief charge?


 
He brought it to the attention of the courts, of the police, of the local paper - you're a bit thick when you want to be, aren't you. 

So what would you have done?


----------



## two sheds (Dec 27, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I can't tell you of some different solution on those facts, because I don't know enough about how council estates work, whether the members are elected etc etc. But I've seen enough about protest in general to believe that usually, sporadic acts of street violence do nothing to remedy the problems they're supposed to be addressing.


 
Ah, you'd have done nothing. Very helpful.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 27, 2010)

two sheds said:


> Ah, you'd have done nothing. Very helpful.


 
Ok, so we've gone past the point of discussion. I need some groceries, anyway.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Dec 27, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I can't tell you of some different solution on those facts, because I don't know enough about how council estates work, whether the members are elected etc etc. But I've seen enough about protest in general to believe that usually, sporadic acts of street violence do nothing to remedy the problems they're supposed to be addressing.


Does voting? Address the problems that its supposed to be addressing?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 27, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> Does voting? Address the problems that its supposed to be addressing?


 
We're talking about protest and civil disobedience. I don't think sporadic violent acts in the street are of assistance in most cases.


----------



## chazegee (Dec 27, 2010)

What's Kettling?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Dec 27, 2010)

It's like tea-baggin, ony rougher,,,


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 27, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> We're talking about protest and civil disobedience. I don't think sporadic violent acts in the street are of assistance in most cases.


 
you've already hamstrung yourself with this one by appealing to the non violent Civil Rights movement as an example- completely ignoring social context and others like the panthers and so on, the local anti klan org.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 27, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> you've already hamstrung yourself with this one by appealing to the non violent Civil Rights movement as an example- completely ignoring social context and others like the panthers and so on, the local anti klan org.


 

Hoover targeted the Panthers for their efforts, for the most part, they ended up dead or serving very long prison sentences. They have little or no legacy; Martin Luther King, Ralph Abernathy and other proponents of nonviolence, have a long and large legacy.


----------



## pk (Dec 27, 2010)

Look chaps I've been to Kettering and it's a jolly nice place, King John in AD 1204 signed it off as a god thing and who are we to argue with that?


----------



## chazegee (Dec 27, 2010)

Fuck, I'd only just got over docking...


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 27, 2010)

flash said:


> .... Whilst the elite ...


lmfao


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 27, 2010)

shaman75 said:


> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/I/chapter/4


Er ... yes ... you're point is ...


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 27, 2010)

two sheds said:


> Nobody listened to my dad so he wrote to the local and national papers. Nobody listened then, either, so he went down the local council offices and threw a brick through the window. He got charged with damaging council property and fought the case himself. He pleaded that if there was a fire in a building it would be perfectly in order for someone to throw a brick through a window to draw attention to the fire, and that was what he was doing. He got found not guilty.


Your story well illustrates some of what I see as the "ground rules" for when breaking the law is necessary to make a point:

1. Lawful means were tried first - breaking the law was a last resort
2. The breaking of the law was obvious ... but minimal and chosen so as to have the minimal collateral impact on other people
3. The person breaking the law readily submitted to the course of the law ... and did not fight the police (who they acknowledged were just doing their job) or whinge and whine that they had been arrested, charged and prosecuted (acknowledging that that was the inevitable consequence of breaking the law and accepting that that was a proce worth paying for what they saw as a necessary step in bringing about what they considered necessary change).

Contrary to what the fuckwits think, I have _absolutely no_ objection whatsoever to people breaking the law in pursuit of a legitimate grievance if these ground rules are observed.  Quite the contrary, I have great respect for them ... as, I suspect, do the majority of police officers, many of whom I have seen treat such offenders with _huge_ respect and courtesy as they have processed them through the arrest and charge process. 

Who I (and, I suspect, the majority of police officers) hate with a vengance are those criminals who hide amongst legitimate protesters simply so that they can have a fight with the police and / or do a spot of light looting.  They have no idea what the protest issues are (and certainly have no strong feeling about them).  The reason I hate them is two fold: once for committing the crimes they do and once for damaging the cause of the actual protest.  They are scum.  Genuine protesters should consider them scum too.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 27, 2010)

two sheds said:


> Stood for parliament and swept all before you in a popular uprising that made you prime minister so you could legislate that everything worked properly afterwards and nobody was unhappy ever again?


The main problem with our current system (in fact the main problem with _any_ established system) is that to get to a position of power and influence you have to "play the game".  This either means you sell out and, by the time you get there, you are part of the problem and no longer the solution or that you have been forced to do so much "bad" stuff to preserve your cover that you are terminally susceptible to the "hypocrisy" card.

It was one of the reasons I bailed out of the police: IF I had played their game then I maybe could have achieved chief officer rank and "made a difference" ... but there is no way that I could play their game and maintain my integrity ... thus the options were (a) remain, keep doing the right thing (some fuckwit senior officer memorably told me "You are very good at doing the right thing ... but not at doing what you are told!") and get more and more frustrated whilst being passed over for promotion or (b) get out.  I chose the latter.

We need to chip away at the party political system - certainly at local level, independent councillors are eminently possible ... perhaps that way lies better democracy?


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 27, 2010)

chazegee said:


> What's Kettling?


It's a cool and trendy new name for the well-established police public order tactic of containment.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 27, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Hoover targeted the Panthers for their efforts, for the most part, they ended up dead or serving very long prison sentences. They have little or no legacy; Martin Luther King, Ralph Abernathy and other proponents of nonviolence, have a long and large legacy.


 
do you think Luther and the non violent crowd woul have been paid any attention if the threat of less reasonable opponents hadn't been there?


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 27, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> It's a cool and trendy new name for the well-established police public order tactic of containment.



Why would anyone be _against_ the police containment of unruly mobs? 

Who knows, if they weren't legitimately contained in this fashion, they may go on to break shop windows or otherwise damage property?


----------



## madzone (Dec 27, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I can't tell you of some different solution on those facts, because I don't know enough about how council estates work, whether the members are elected etc etc. But I've seen enough about protest in general to believe that usually, sporadic acts of street violence do nothing to remedy the problems they're supposed to be addressing.


 
You're quite right.


They need to be less sporadic.


----------



## ymu (Dec 27, 2010)

chazegee said:


> What's Kettling?


 
It appears to be police slang, originally coined by the German police.



> Kettling/ˈkɛt(ə)lɪŋ/ Help with IPA
> 
> This jargon term of the British police first came widely to public notice during the G20 summit in London in April 2009. It has been in the news again as a result of demonstrations in London against steep rises in university tuition fees.
> 
> ...


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 27, 2010)

the german police as well, so practically Nazis.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 27, 2010)

ymu said:


> It appears to be police slang, originally coined by the German police.


 
Yes, there used to be official and unofficial kettling warnings put up well outside various 'events' decades ago in West Germany - it's not a a new trendy term. It's a deliberate adoption of an aggressive version of a tactic. And the german police adopted it because in military use it was usually  the precursor to a massacre.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 27, 2010)

ymu said:


> It appears to be police slang, originally coined by the German police.


No.  It appears to be a German police name for the tactic of containment.  



> The term is older than kettling (it appears in the publications Die Zeit and Der Spiegel in June *1986* and may well be earlier)


But this _can't_ be right ... the fuckwits tell us with _absolute certainty_ that "kettling" is brand new and have absolutely no truck whatsoever with my repeatedly pointing out that it is a trendy new name for something (containment) which has been a tactic since the old King died ...


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 27, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> ... it was usually  the precursor to a massacre.


My money is on ten posts before some fuckwit claims that either (a) the police massacred the students on Westminster Bridge and threw the bodies into the Thames or (b) they _intended_ to do so and would have done but for the brave "citizen journalists" who recorded every move ...


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 27, 2010)

You noticed the word 'term' didn't you?  No, you didn't. Or if you did you chose to ignore it.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 27, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> My money is on ten posts before some fuckwit claims that either (a) the police massacred the students on Westminster Bridge and threw the bodies into the Thames or (b) they _intended_ to do so and would have done but for the brave "citizen journalists" who recorded every move ...


 
Thanks for cutting out the substantive part of my post - the bit you disagree with.

Great, we get this shit all day once more.


----------



## audiotech (Dec 27, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Hoover targeted the Panthers for their efforts, for the most part, they ended up dead or serving very long prison sentences. They have little or no legacy; Martin Luther King, Ralph Abernathy and other proponents of nonviolence, have a long and large legacy.



Despite his non-violence King, as you well know, was assassinated violently.

Peace.


----------



## audiotech (Dec 27, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Why would anyone be _against_ the police containment of unruly mobs?
> 
> Who knows, if they weren't legitimately contained in this fashion, they may go on to break shop windows or otherwise damage property?


 
Particularly when the Bullingdon Club are out and about.


----------



## rekil (Dec 27, 2010)

_Parle a la main, milice-garçon._


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 27, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, there used to be official and unofficial kettling warnings put up well outside various 'events' decades ago in West Germany - it's not a a new trendy term. It's a deliberate adoption of an aggressive version of a tactic. And the german police adopted it because in military use it was usually  the precursor to a massacre.


 
There was (possibly still is) a debate in Germany as to whether the term originated as a reference to the propensity of _Generalfeldmarschall_ Kesselring's troops to surround and massacre civilians.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 27, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> My money is on ten posts before some fuckwit claims that either (a) the police massacred the students on Westminster Bridge and threw the bodies into the Thames or (b) they _intended_ to do so and would have done but for the brave "citizen journalists" who recorded every move ...


 
That's because you're an idiot, and proof that education doesn't instill sense.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 27, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Thanks for cutting out the substantive part of my post - the bit you disagree with.
> 
> Great, we get this shit all day once more.


 
What can I say, the boy just loves to de-contextualise what people have said. I suspect he believes it allows him to misrepresents posts at will, whereas it actually just points up to other posters that he's dishonest.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 27, 2010)

copliker said:


> View attachment 13084
> 
> _Parle a la main, milice-garçon._


 
She's either saying that, or she's got a big glass screen in front of her.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 27, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Thanks for cutting out the substantive part of my post - the bit you disagree with.


What makes you think I disagree with it?  So it's a German term for containment ... what's to disagree with?

If I don't refer to something it usually means I've no particular issue with it.  I simply do not understand why you expect everyone to line up going "OOoooh!  That's great!" for everything they agree with ...


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 27, 2010)




----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 27, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


>


 
OOoooh! That's great!


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 27, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Er ... yes ... you're point is ...



I'm struggling to see how containment is lawful under section 1c. of article 5, given what sections 3 and 4 say about detention under those circumstances tbh.

There's no judge you can see, there's no proceedings you can take to get released... is there?


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 27, 2010)

londheart said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights#Article_5_-_liberty_and_security
> 
> 'Article 5 - liberty and security
> Main article: Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights
> ...


 
Not sure WTF that has to do with 'kettling', here go read what the Law Lords judgement was in Jan. 2009, which backed both the High Court & Appeal Court, because (a) the ruling is far more up to date and (b) it actually fucking concerns 'kettling'.


----------



## londheart (Dec 27, 2010)

Law Lords suck. The Article is clear.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 28, 2010)

shaman75 said:


> I'm struggling to see how containment is lawful under section 1c. of article 5, given what sections 3 and 4 say about detention under those circumstances tbh.





londheart said:


> Law Lords suck. The Article is clear.


Not as clear as you think!!  You are making the usual layman's mistake of reading the provision literally.  The Courts have the job of _interpreting_ statute and deciding what it actually _means_ in application.

There is nothing in the provision which prevents the release of someone arrested or detained _at any stage_, and certainly without charge or trial, should the grounds for arresting or detaining them cease to exist.

Your literal reading of the provision would mean that everyone arrested on suspicion of something would HAVE to be charged and arraigned before a Court even though _everyone_ knew there was no point.  That would plainly be fuckwitted ... and so the interpretation of that sort of provision by the Courts has always been that that was not what it's intended consequence was meant to be.

"Promptly" is interpreted as meaning within the provisions enacted for the investigation, charging and arraigning before the Court made (and deemed compliant with the ECHR) in the particular country.  Here there are a number of issues which, if I were challenging this particular containment, I would focus upon:

1. There is a well-established requirement (PACE and it's Codes of Practice) for people arrested to be advised of the grounds at the time or as soon as practicable afterwards.  It has been held that it is OK not to comply with this requirement if, for instance, the prisoner is violently resisting arrest, or if they are so drunk as to be incapable of understanding the information given.  In the context of this containment I think I would be arguing that whilst it might _initially_ be impracticable for information to be provided, the police must (very quickly) ensure that anyone asking a cordon officer is provided with accurate information (I would have thought 30 minutes, an hour at most would be a reasonable time to expect this to be achievable) and, not long after that (maybe two, certainly three, hours) the police would have a duty to proactively inform everyone detained (by PA system or some other means).

2. The length of time that a containment can remain considered as detention short of arrest - bearing in mind that for the majority of offences the maximum detention time after arrest and pre-charge is 24 hours and that a formal review of detention must be carried out after 6 hours I would suggest that something like 4 hours should be an outside limit on a containment (perhaps with provision for extension in exceptional circumstances but with authority required from a very senior officer or perhaps a Magistrate). 

3. Where people are dealt with under most coercive powers (stop & search; arrest; search of premises) there is an entitlement to written notices containing information on powers used, officers involved and means of challenging the legality of the use of the power - there is no reason why (especially when the release of people from a containment is managed so that they are processed one by one for the convenience or purposes of the police) a written notice could not be required, again perhaps in relation to a containment maintained over a certain period (1 hour? 2 Hours?)

All of these, in my view, provide strong grounds for challenging the legality of the recent containment on Westminster Bridge and would, I suggest, be the sorts of restriction that the Courts will inevitably impose if the police do not amend their practice voluntarily.


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 28, 2010)

londheart said:


> Law Lords suck. The Article is clear.



And you are clearly an idiot of the highest order, if you bothered to read that ruling, which whilst issued by the Law Lords basically backed-up both the High Court and Appeal Court, it has made/set 'case-law' until such time, if ever, it overruled.

That's the reality, face it or not is your choice.



detective-boy said:


> <snip long post just above>



It’s clear containment or ‘kettling’, and yes it is the same thing despite some people claiming otherwise, has been ‘declared legal’, I can see individual uses of it must still be judged as it if its use is ‘reasonable’ and a big factor of that would be the length of time involved.

I would agree with you that the length of time involved on the bridge appears excessive, although the case I’ve linked to above concerned a period of 7-hours, so I guess the Met thinks that sets the upper time limit, assuming the circumstances could be justified as similar, anyway?



> The facts
> 
> 3.  On 1 May 2001 at about 2 pm a crowd of demonstrators marched into Oxford Circus from Regent Street South. They were joined later by others who entered the Circus, or tried to enter it, from all directions. By the end of the afternoon some 3,000 people were within the Circus and several thousands more were gathered outside in the streets that lead into it. The appellant was among those who went to Oxford Circus as part of the crowd to demonstrate, but she was not one of the organisers. *She was prevented from leaving the area by the police cordon for about seven hours. On 29 April 2002 she brought a claim for damages against the respondent for false imprisonment and for breach of her right under article 5(1) of the Convention to liberty. The case went to trial before Tugendhat J who, having analysed the evidence with great care and attention to detail, dismissed her claims*: [2005] EWHC 480 (QB); [2005] HRLR 647. What follows is a much abbreviated summary of his account of the event. http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.com/pa/ld200809/ldjudgmt/jd090128/austin-1.htm


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 28, 2010)

I'm sure if you allow rteality to be defined by courts and law wedded to protection of state interests it all makes perfect sense. In a judiciary totally free from state collusion the commanders instigating such long and injurious holding actions against people excersising a legal right to protest would be held to account.

Round the back of a nearby pub.


----------



## stuff_it (Dec 28, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


>



If riot coppers attacked me with giant hairpins I too would throw bricks.

Kettling is clearly a *bad thing* and often misused by the *powers that be* - have seen it happen in the past (people driven through plate glass windows by the pressure of the crowd, etc - guess who got blamed!). Very difficult to distinguish between proper kettling and containment though, and we can all guess what they would say they were doing were 'kettling' to be banned.

I still have trouble working out how the female student's managed to riot properly in those fake ugg moon-boots they all wear these days....wore proper footwear in my day, etc, etc.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 15, 2012)

Kettling 'lawful'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17378700


> "Kettling" tactics used by the Metropolitan Police to contain crowds in 2001 were lawful, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled.
> The controversial method was used during anti-globalisation demonstrations in London on 1 May 2001.
> Police blocked off Oxford Circus and corralled those inside for seven hours.
> The court said there had been no violation of Article 5 - the right to liberty and security - of the European Convention on Human Rights.


----------



## krink (Mar 15, 2012)

sorry for aside, but i thought it said ban Kettering.

*rings specsavers


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 15, 2012)

Took them how many years to come up with that piece of shit verdict? 



> The judges ruled that the convention also placed a duty on the police "to protect individuals from violence and physical injury".


 
If that's a justification for kettling then it's a justification for throwing everyone in jail just to be on the safe side.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 15, 2012)

krink said:


> sorry for aside, but i thought it said ban Kettering.
> 
> *rings specsavers


Now there's a petition I can get behind.


----------



## Brainaddict (Mar 18, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> If that's a justification for kettling then it's a justification for throwing everyone in jail just to be on the safe side.


 
Even if the prevention of violence or physical injury were a good reason for kettling, that's not why the police do it. The NHS demo was kettled yesterday and one of the officers basically stated it was to stop people obstructing to the highway - the protest had left the designated protest area and was walking round the streets. Probably the real reason was to stop people reaching any potential targets and to break up the demo to put an end to it. But even if we accept the reason given yesterday, it was nothing to do with preventing violence.

As an aside, they tried to pretend that everyone had to give names and addresses to get out of the kettle (not true and people successfully refused). So it's also a potential intel-gathering technique.

Anyway, ECHR sucks.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Mar 18, 2012)

krink said:


> sorry for aside, but i thought it said ban Kettering.
> 
> *rings specsavers


 

Corby kills Kettering.


----------



## ddraig (Feb 3, 2014)

*bump!*



> This should now change, as the High Court has today ruled that the police have no powers to force people to give their details, or comply with police filming and photography, simply because they are held in a kettle.
> Lord Justice Moses criticised police practice in no uncertain terms. He stated,
> _It is unacceptable that a civilian photographer on instruction from the police should be entitled to obtain photographs for investigation and crime investigation purposes…as the price for leaving a containment. Although the common law has sanctioned containment it has done so in only restricted circumstances.
> 
> It was not lawful for the police to maintain the containment for the purposes of obtaining identification, whether by questioning or by filming. It follows that it was not lawful to require identification to be given and submission to filming as the price for release._


http://netpol.org/2013/06/18/police-powers-finally-kettled-by-high-court/



> Susannah has stated that she is ‘very happy’ with the judgement, which should change the way the police operate. She has also forced the police to remove any record of her attendance that night from their databases. She said,
> 
> _I am deeply concerned by the increasing criminalisation of protest. I do not accept that by choosing to express political dissent people automatically volunteer away their rights to personal privacy and freedoms.
> 
> Freedom of protest is under relentless attack from the state. Under the new legal aid reforms, protest law judicial review cases such as mine, which are usually the last refuge against oppressive state behaviour, would not have been possible._


nice one Susannah


----------



## ddraig (Feb 3, 2014)

did look for thread on kettling and courts but didn't find


----------



## Greebo (Feb 3, 2014)

ddraig said:


> did look for thread on kettling and courts but didn't find


Thanks for the update.


----------



## ffsear (Feb 27, 2014)

Millwall fans need to be kettled


----------

