Shard climbers arrested for aggravated trespass.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-23283323
Quite a stretch of the definition, I would say. I can't see that they meant to intimidate anybody, or to disrupt or obstruct an activity in the Shard.
I don't even see why they chose to close the viewing platform, just because a bunch of women from Greenpeace were climbing up the building. Perhaps it makes it easier to prosecute.
Good to see that our laws are being misused to cater to the demands of the corporations.
|
|
boxes ticked, job done, fast track promotions and gongs in due course.
|
>>Good to see that our laws are being misused to cater to the demands of the corporations.
Scarcely. The owners of the Shard are nothing to do with Shell. These women have caused untold disruption; there will have to be an inspection to see what damage they have done to the building climbing up the 'ladder' affair.
Of course the viewing platform had to be closed. For the safety of the protesters as much as the public.
|
>> >>Good to see that our laws are being misused to cater to the demands of
>> the corporations.
>> Scarcely. The owners of the Shard are nothing to do with Shell.
I didn't say that they did. It seems that the police are happy to throw their weight around for the owners of the Shard, along with any other corporation.
>> there will have to be an inspection to see what damage they
>> have done to the building climbing up the 'ladder' affair.
Firstly, you are assuming that there was damage. Secondly, what has that got to do with aggravated trespass?
>> Of course the viewing platform had to be closed. For the safety of the protesters
>> as much as the public.
Can you explain that? How exactly would the public be in danger if they viewing level was left open? How exactly would the climbers be in danger?
>> These women have
>> caused untold disruption;
Exactly which activity have they disrupted?
|
It seems that the police are happy to throw their weight around for the owners of the Shard, along with any other corporation.
The police arrested them for an offence. How is that throwing their weight around?
How exactly would the climbers be in danger?
Incase someone lobbed something at them?
|
Nothing to do with the Shard, innocent people disrupted, cost money PUBLIC money at that. Course they should have been arrested and charged.
Inappropriate, inaccurate and stupid thread title too.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 12 Jul 13 at 13:22
|
>> Nothing to do with the Shard, innocent people disrupted, cost money PUBLIC money at that.
>> Course they should have been arrested and charged.
What activity have they disrupted?
Just because a protest attracts attention and ends up costing public money, doesn't make it an offence.
|
>> >> Nothing to do with the Shard, innocent people disrupted, cost money PUBLIC money at
>> that.
>> >> Course they should have been arrested and charged.
>>
>> What activity have they disrupted?
Roads around the area were cordoned off, police were directed away from other duties, fire and ambulance standing by, traffic disruption. Does this stuff really need explaining to you?
>>
>> Just because a protest attracts attention and ends up costing public money, doesn't make it
>> an offence.
Does in my book. You can pay the cost. Will you be happy with that? no course you wont.
|
>> Roads around the area were cordoned off, police were directed away from other duties, fire
>> and ambulance standing by, traffic disruption. Does this stuff really need explaining to you?
The offence of aggravated trespess require them to have intentionally disrupted an activity on the land or adjoining land?
Which activity was that Zero?
You can't just charge someone with the first crime you think of, just because you didn't like what they did, and think they should be punished.
EDIT: Well you can, of course, if you want to misuse the law to get your own way.
>> >> Just because a protest attracts attention and ends up costing public money, doesn't make
>> it
>> >> an offence.
>>
>> Does in my book. You can pay the cost. Will you be happy with that?
>> no course you wont.
Well, it might do in your book Zero...presumably the offence of "causing public money to be spent"...but your book doesn't actually have any legal effect...thankfully :)
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Fri 12 Jul 13 at 13:43
|
>> >> Roads around the area were cordoned off, police were directed away from other duties,
>> fire
>> >> and ambulance standing by, traffic disruption. Does this stuff really need explaining to you?
>>
>> The offence of aggravated trespess require them to have intentionally disrupted an activity on the
>> land or adjoining land?
>>
>> Which activity was that Zero?
They had to clase the observation gallery, Pre booked tours were turned away. Loss of revenue.
Tenants were disrupted entering the building. Tenents working patterns around that corner were interupted.
You know jack sheet about the law, so leave it to those who do. Good idea yes?
|
>> Well, it might do in your book Zero...presumably the offence of "causing public money to
>> be spent"...but your book doesn't actually have any legal effect...thankfully :)
You know that bit where you have reached the "I am such a tit you are not worth a reply"
|
A person commits the offence of aggravated trespass if he trespasses on land [F1in the open air] and, in relation to any lawful activity which persons are engaging in or are about to engage in on that or adjoining land [F2in the open air] , does there anything which is intended by him to have the effect—
(a)of intimidating those persons or any of them so as to deter them or any of them from engaging in that activity,
(b)of obstructing that activity, or
(c)of disrupting that activity.
It seems pretty clear that the lawful business of opening the Shard to the public was disrupted by the activities of the protestors as the management felt compelled to close the viewing area.
The protestors will of course have their day in court to plead their case.
|
>> It seems pretty clear that the lawful business of opening the Shard to the public
>> was disrupted by the activities of the protestors as the management felt compelled to close
>> the viewing area.
>>
>> The protestors will of course have their day in court to plead their case.
You've quoted the law, so I won't repeat it.
However, causing some disruption to a business is, IMO, not the same as intentionally obstructing or preventing an activity.
That would, I suggest, apply to somebody who tries to prevent people entering a McDonald's, prevent them from purchasing or intimidating them to leave.
It wouldn't apply to somebody climbing up on the roof and holding up a banner, even if it did make people stop and look, or mean that the staff were distracted, or if the police were called.
It is trespass with intent to stop somebody doing something, not just trespass that causes some disruption as a by-product (which almost all protests would do).
As you say, they'll have their day in court. Hopefully it will go their way, but a disgruntled magistrate can misuse the law as easily as the police.
|
"but a disgruntled magistrate can misuse the law as easily as the police."
Then they can appeal. Seems to me pretty obvious that there was deliberate disruption. You believe otherwise. That is why we have a legal system and courts.
|
>> However, causing some disruption to a business is, IMO, not the same as intentionally obstructing or preventing an activity.
>>
>> That would, I suggest, apply to somebody who tries to prevent people entering a McDonald's,
>> prevent them from purchasing or intimidating them to leave.
>>
>> It wouldn't apply to somebody climbing up on the roof and holding up a banner,
>> even if it did make people stop and look, or mean that the staff were
>> distracted, or if the police were called.
>>
>> It is trespass with intent to stop somebody doing something, not just trespass that causes
>> some disruption as a by-product (which almost all protests would do).
>>
>> As you say, they'll have their day in court. Hopefully it will go their way,
>> but a disgruntled magistrate can misuse the law as easily as the police.
>>
>>
I'm pretty sure that on doing this they knew the building bods would respond and do something would have a knock on in the building, although I can't say I can follow the legal differences between disruption/preventing/obstruction.
Mind you another day of publicity in court will be a bit of plus for them, that's what all this is about isn't it? Not that it will make much of a difference in my opinion.
|
Ahhh, thank goodness. The voice of reason is back from holiday:)
You have been missed CG.
Pat
|
>> The police arrested them for an offence. How is that throwing their weight around?
They have arrested them because the Shard has complained about them, not because they have committed an offence. They have found the offence that was the closest match, and misused it.
>> How exactly would the climbers be in danger?
>>
>> In case someone lobbed something at them?
That doesn't inherently follow from the act of climbing. It would be criminal offence on the part of the person throwing something.
They don't close the viewing levels when pedestrians are walking on the pavement below. What if somebody on the viewing levels throws something at them?
|
Dunno about "Corporate" Jackboots, more like the over reaction of officialdom.
Its all ridiculous though;
Climbing the thing is dumb in the first place, but hey, if they want to good luck to them. And their cause is not without a bit of merit. As long as nobody claims if they fall off and die.
If there is any genuine clean up or repair work, like removing the banner, then they should pay.
If arresting and charging them is related to recovering some money, then it seems a valid thing to do. If it is simply a pointless conviction, then it is just that - pointless.
And as for disturbing innocent people? Oh dear. We live in a society of different and differing people. This might be a bit irritating, but I wouldn't like to live in an environment where this sort of thing never happened.
|
>> >> The police arrested them for an offence. How is that throwing their weight around?
>>
>> They have arrested them because the Shard has complained about them, not because they have committed an offence. They have found the offence that was the closest match, and misused it.
Well I guess it helps if they now about such offences, the owners complained they got arrested.
>> >> How exactly would the climbers be in danger?
>> >>
>> >> In case someone lobbed something at them?
>>
>> That doesn't inherently follow from the act of climbing. It would be criminal offence on
>> the part of the person throwing something.
>>
>> They don't close the viewing levels when pedestrians are walking on the pavement below. What
>> if somebody on the viewing levels throws something at them?
>>
Greater likelyhood of it happening. Why does it matter anyway if the shut the public viewing area, were you going on a trip up there?
|
>> Why does it matter anyway if the shut the public
>> viewing area, were you going on a trip up there?
I was considering it, but I might just climb up the outside instead. How hard can it be if a bunch of girls did it?
It only seems to matter because it will likely be put forward as "an activity that was intentionally prevented".
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Fri 12 Jul 13 at 14:45
|
>> >> Why does it matter anyway if the shut the public
>> >> viewing area, were you going on a trip up there?
>>
>> I was considering it, but I might just climb up the outside instead. How hard
>> can it be if a bunch of girls did it?
It'll pass the time I'm sure. Might even be a better view I think the London eye might be easier for a view across the big smoke.
>>
>> It only seems to matter because it will likely be put forward as "an activity
>> that was intentionally prevented".
>>
Just set your self up as a Corporation, then you can use your jackboot. Do as you please then eh? ;-)
|
>> Just set your self up as a Corporation, then you can use your jackboot. Do
>> as you please then eh? ;-)
I already have a list of people to be crushed...
|
|
Those made overnervous/vexed by building climbers at number one (and one or two jackboot wearers) I'll bet. Carry on that man!
|
>> I already have a list of people to be crushed...
>>
I bet all those packs of walkers are sheeting themselves....
|
>>Exactly which activity have they disrupted?
London Bridge? Surrounded by ambulances, journalists and police? Who is going to take the banner down from the Shard? I bet they leave their litter behind...
>>Firstly, you are assuming that there was damage.
Not at all. I am assuming that there will have to be an inspection for damage.
>>How exactly would the public be in danger if they viewing level was left open?
Maybe I could have been clearer, but I was implying that it was for the safety of the climbers rather than the public.
>>How exactly would the climbers be in danger?
It doesn't make for much imagination to conceive circumstances whereby a member of the public surprised a climber and he fell off the building to his death. Not worth risking.
Don't get me wrong; I'd be all for making them climb back down again rather than rescuing them. And getting the window cleaners to smear the 'ladder' with Vaseline. Let alone having ambulance crews waiting with rehydration fluids. But they knew the disruption they would cause, and they should suffer accordingly. What do you think it has cost us so far? £250,000?
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Fri 12 Jul 13 at 13:18
|
>> >>Exactly which activity have they disrupted?
>>
>> London Bridge? Surrounded by ambulances, journalists and police?
Complete misinterpretation of the law, IMHO.
Any protest could draw crowds, press and police.
Does that mean that if a crowd gathers to watch a protest, or the press and police turn up, that it becomes a criminal act?
If they had gone up to the viewing levels and prevented access, that would have been aggravated trespass. Not simply because people stopped to watch them.
Who is going to take the banner
>> down from the Shard? I bet they leave their litter behind...
What does that have to do with arresting someone for aggravated trespass?
>> Not at all. I am assuming that there will have to be an inspection for
>> damage.
A landowner would probably check for damage after any protest. Do that make them all illegal? Even if there is no damage?
>> >>How exactly would the climbers be in danger?
>>
>> It doesn't make for much imagination to conceive circumstances whereby a member of the public
>> surprised a climber and he fell off the building to his death. Not worth risking.
They are trained climbers, undertaking a climb with full equipment.
In what way exactly would they be surprised, and fall to their death?
Anyway, just because they chose to close it, doesn't mean that the climbers intended to disrupt the platform - which the offence would require.
>> they knew the disruption they would
>> cause, and they should suffer accordingly. What do you think it has cost us so
>> far? £250,000?
I would like to know which actual activity they intended to disrupt, rather than some vague idea that their protest caused attention.
As I said earlier, just because a protest causes public money to be spent, doesn't make it aggravated trespass, or any other crime for that matter.
|
It was trespass and it disrupted the normal business of the shard, therefore it is under the law a clear case of aggravated trespass.
|
>> It was trespass and it disrupted the normal business of the shard, therefore it is
>> under the law a clear case of aggravated trespass.
Wrong.
They had to have intended to obstruct or prevent an activity, on the land, or adjoining land.
Which activity did they intentionally obstruct or prevent?
|
>Wrong.
>They had to have intended to obstruct or prevent an activity, on the land, or adjoining land.
Not wrong. Intention is only part of law. Consequences of actions is also part of law. Especially when consequences might reasonably be expected.
Also
The viewing gallery was closed. Loss of revenue
Tenants were moved form the area they were climbing in - for safety reasons.
Costs will be incurred to inspect the area they climbed
Now it was trespass, you cant argue that and I am sure you are aware, being the self proclaimed legal eagle that you are, that loss of revenue or earnings and incurred costs are aggravating factors applied to the trespass.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 12 Jul 13 at 14:08
|
>> Not wrong. Intention is only part of law. Consequences of actions is also part of
>> law. Especially when consequences might reasonably be expected.
Wrong again. It is a vital part of the offence of aggravated trespass.
"does there anything which is intended by him"
The offence is there to stop you going onto private land and deliberately stopping an activity from being carried out.
Completely misapplied in this case, but perhaps the closest offence they could find that matched their lawful activity.
>> self proclaimed legal eagle that you are
So, we're at the insult phase again are we, Zero? ;)
You state an opinion, all is fine, I state an opinion, and I am self proclaiming myself as a legal eagle.
>> aggravating factors applied to the trespass.
You're forgetting the fact that they need to have intended to obstruct or prevent an activity, it is not sufficient that there was some disruption.
If it was, then all protests could be criminalised.
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Fri 12 Jul 13 at 14:18
|
'They are trained climbers, undertaking a climb with full equipment.'
I know it's not per se to do with the offence, but how do you know that or anyone else (fire/ambulance) for that matter?
|
>> 'They are trained climbers, undertaking a climb with full equipment.'
>>
>> I know it's not per se to do with the offence, but how do you
>> know that or anyone else (fire/ambulance) for that matter?
The women were named in yesterday's Standard along with details of their climbing background. They certainly looked well equipped with the leaders roping up for those following.
|
>> >> 'They are trained climbers, undertaking a climb with full equipment.'
>> >>
>> >> I know it's not per se to do with the offence, but how do
>> you
>> >> know that or anyone else (fire/ambulance) for that matter?
>>
>> The women were named in yesterday's Standard along with details of their climbing background. They
>> certainly looked well equipped with the leaders roping up for those following.
>>
After or before they'd climbed up?
Last edited by: sooty123 on Fri 12 Jul 13 at 14:03
|
>> I know it's not per se to do with the offence, but how do you
>> know that or anyone else (fire/ambulance) for that matter?
My understanding was that they contacted the relevant parties just after getting on the building, and explained all of this.
Also, they seemed to have representatives on the ground for liaison.
All in all it seemed well planned and responsibly executed.
|
>> >> I know it's not per se to do with the offence, but how do
>> you
>> >> know that or anyone else (fire/ambulance) for that matter?
>>
>> My understanding was that they contacted the relevant parties just after getting on the building,
>> and explained all of this.
>>
>> Also, they seemed to have representatives on the ground for liaison.
>>
>> All in all it seemed well planned and responsibly executed.
>>
>>
>>
All sorted in the magestrates court then.
|
>> What do you think it has cost us so far? £250,000?
>>
That looks a bit much to me. The emergency services would have to be paid anyway and no doubt would be called away in event of a higher priority 'shout'. Like rescuing kittens from trees or pigeons caught in roof top netting an event like this gives the services an opportunity to practice with specialist kit.
Who's going to mind standing around in the sunshine with state of (un)dress of young females in London today as a sideshow??
In any event policing and managing demonstrations is a cost of democracy.
Aggravated trespass is the sort of offence pressed for by landowners, the modern sucessor to keeping the plebs off the grouse moors.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 12 Jul 13 at 13:40
|
>>Who's going to mind standing around .... with state of (un)dress of young females in London
If its anything like the ones hanging around Oxford, then I would mind. A lot. Pierced belly buttons, lycra and serious overhangs. Yuk.
|
>> If its anything like the ones hanging around Oxford, then I would mind. A lot.
>> Pierced belly buttons, lycra and serious overhangs. Yuk.
Students are a law unto themselves. Nowt wrong with a bit of flesh, better a modest overhang than a pea-stick.
|
>> >>Who's going to mind standing around .... with state of (un)dress of young females in
>> London
>>
>> If its anything like the ones hanging around Oxford, then I would mind. A lot.
>> Pierced belly buttons, lycra and serious overhangs. Yuk.
Known as "muffin tops"
|
I visited the Shard viewing platform before the official opening which was the subject of another thread and the security was formidable but whether that was due to the presence of various diplomats , MP's and VIP's etc or not I do not know.
I suppose after 9/11 they take no chances but IMO a complete overreaction to close it down to visitors..... although the wind speed at the top was probably 40mph and could have been dangerous for the climbers.
Maybe Greenpeace were objecting to the price to visit ..... around £25 a head....
|
I'm not interested in the legal faff. They won't be punished severely. And in any case their cause is a lost one: oil will be drilled for sooner or later wherever it is found.
What I am though is in awe of people who do that sort of thing. I start to gibber and sweat 15 feet from the ground. Monkey-brains (as we called them when I was 10) seem to be from a different though related species.
I recommend the BOB cartoon on p.20 of today's Terrorflag. I don't 'get' it exactly - perhaps the point it's making isn't very exact - but I like it all the same.
|
No, I don't get the cartoon either. Never being able to recognise the subjects doesn't help.
I don't suppose they are especially upset or surprised at being arrested and charged with something. The more kerfuffle, the better from their point of view.
If they came and climbed up the front of my house I think I might call the rozzers just to see what happened.
Unlikely, as we live in a bungly hole.
|
Corporate jackboots - -
