A couple of journalists have been arrested recently for reporting on the stop the oil protests.
Not a good move and I suspect that there will be large payouts in compensation.
Just because the journalists get better or advance info of the protests does not make them conspirators - police over-reach, especially when proof was provided that these people were journalists.
|
|
I think you need to explain WHY they were arrested. certainly wasn't for "reporting on the protests"
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 10 Nov 22 at 14:07
|
|
I wonder if their bona were fide?
|
>> I think you need to explain WHY they were arrested. certainly wasn't for "reporting on
>> the protests"
They seemed to be on a public footbridge observing and photographing protesters who'd climbed up onto a gantry.
Is there more to it?
|
>>
>> Is there more to it?
>>
Yes there is. They know where the protests are likely to be (on motorways) and drive around looking for them!
They also check the protesters' facebook pages for details of the next event.
Things that are too difficult for the police to do, obviously.
I also think the police must have some people secreted within the protest group anyway.
|
>> I also think the police must have some people secreted within the protest group anyway.
Unlikely, its a relatively new group, and small in number. Difficult and lengthy to infiltrate
Do we think the journo's were tipped off by the group? Absolutely, are they complicit by not telling the police? probably.
|
>>
>> are they complicit
>> by not telling the police? probably.
>>
I don't think there is a legal obligation to tell the police that a crime is being committed or about to be committed. Otherwise we would all be obligated to daily report everyone that we see speeding, etc.
|
>> I don't think there is a legal obligation to tell the police that a crime
>> is being committed or about to be committed. Otherwise we would all be obligated to
>> daily report everyone that we see speeding, etc.
No, you miss the point, by knowing a crime is ABOUT to be committed, you are complicit in that crime, conspiracy covers it.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 10 Nov 22 at 20:06
|
>>conspiracy...
Where do you draw the line? Is seeing something posted on a forum conspiracy if it's in the public domain?
I'm in a pub and overhear the blokes on the table next to me plot a bank raid for that afternoon. Am I implicated if I do nothing?
Of course morally one would do something, but legally, I don't think you have to.
|
>> Where do you draw the line? Is seeing something posted on a forum conspiracy if
>> it's in the public domain?
no
>> I'm in a pub and overhear the blokes on the table next to me plot
>> a bank raid for that afternoon. Am I implicated if I do nothing?
yes possibly.
>> Of course morally one would do something, but legally, I don't think you have to.
No you dont, but if someone send you a FB message saying "be there at j12 at 0800 tomorrow morning and you'll have something to report". then yes you do, and yes you are.
Even worse if you message them saying "Guys when and where is the next one"
And thats he point. Its all about timing. If the press guys were there ready and waiting for the loons to turn up, the they are ripe for questioning over conspiracy charges. Proving it of course is the follow up part of the process.
|
>> I don't think there is a legal obligation to tell the police that a crime
>> is being committed or about to be committed. Otherwise we would all be obligated to
>> daily report everyone that we see speeding, etc.
This was a protest, albeit a disruptive one, rather than a terrorist attack.
If it had been a terrorist bombing or shooting, I hope that any news organisation would report it immediately. Didn't the IRA typically phone a newspaper before they blew something up?
|
>> If it had been a terrorist bombing or shooting, I hope that any news organisation
>> would report it immediately. Didn't the IRA typically phone a newspaper before they blew something
>> up?
Yes, with a well known codeword.
There is a huge difference between what is morally correct and legally correct.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 10 Nov 22 at 20:06
|
Charlotte Lynch an LBC 'Journalist' was one of those arrested and LBC were exploiting their media status and were milking it yesterday. Protesting that as a journalist they had complete immunity.
Of course it was a one side report where she was horrified that she was placed in a cell that had a stainless steel toilet and she was photographed/ fingerprinted and DNA'd.
Thing is that's what a cell is. There are no 'Platinum' ones. And everyone that is arrested is subject to photograph fingers and DNA.
The Herts Police made a later statement stating that in hindsight there was no 'necessity' for their her arrest. Of course you immediately thing that they are apologising for a false arrest, and that was how it was spun. But that is not quite so. Its a bit complicated in that there are no "Arrestable" Offences any more. Sec 24 PACE 84 makes all offences arrestable subject to a "Necessity Test". In other words all other options for dealing should be considered, such as reporting for summons. Arrest should be a last resort. For example name and address cannot be ascertained, conducting a prompt and effective investigation and so on.
What I am saying is that the way they are phrasing it is that yes she may have committed an offences/s but maybe they could have progressed it differently.
And who else would get an inquiry after being arrested. Power of the media is dangerous.
5 (C) V is another one - To prevent the person in question causing an unlawful obstruction of the highway.
What we don't know is what were the circumstances? What exactly was she her behaviour? How far was her intrusion into the protest and was she in any way complicit or inciting?
At this point we only have her account. Police Body Cam footage may allow us to make a more informed decision as to the right or wrongs of what went on.
The other thing is that everyone with a camera now classifies themselves as a "Journalist" (think in terms of these Chav so called Auditors) where in reality they are just looking for Youtube hits. Their behaviour can be confrontational and antagonistic. Throw all that into the mix and the environment becomes somewhat hostile with blurred lines from a policing perspective.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Thu 10 Nov 22 at 15:28
|
Sorry did an edit and this additional sentence appeared in the middle then I was timed out.
"And who else would get an inquiry after being arrested. Power of the media is dangerous."
|
>>"And who else would get an inquiry after being arrested. Power of the media is dangerous."
Suppressing reporting is to me far more sinister than simple wrongful arrest, if that is what it was.
Power of the media is indeed dangerous, especially when it is manipulated by the authorities.
To take the wider issue, it's pretty well established now that fake news, extreme views, and people believing all sorts of rubbish like stolen elections, is most prevalent where there is no decent Public Service Broadcasting. The current government has put a lot of effort into rubbishing the BBC and putting its nominees on the board e.g. Sir Robbie Gibb, May's former comms director and advisor and known for his 'anti-woke' views; also BBC Chair Richard Sharp, who coincidentally has donated over £400,000 to the Conservatives. They also hate Channel 4, possibly the best news organisation we have.
Suppressing a free press is one of the first things a nascent fascist regime does. Once people don't have a benchmark for trusted news, they are much easier to deceive.
I'm sure you think I exaggerate. It probably won't happen. But this is how it starts.
|
>>What we don't know is what were the circumstances? What exactly was she her behaviour? >>How far was her intrusion into the protest and was she in any way complicit or inciting?
Apparently she was on a legitimate bridge over the motorway with a camera. Not next to them and not involved with them.
|
>> According to?
>>
Her own account...
Ms Lynch said she was arrested on a road bridge between junction 20 (Abbot s L angley) and junction 21 (M1/St Albans interchange) during Tuesday's protest by the Just Stop Oil group.
(Not everyone arrested is lying.)
The protestors were on a gantry.
(Abbot s L angley split because the filter doesn't like it?)
Last edited by: zippy on Thu 10 Nov 22 at 16:13
|
At least one says she was arrested for "conspiracy", presumably on the basis that knowing about it made them party to it.
It's ridiculous. Thick people with authority thinking they are a lot clever than they are.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-63582532
Why should she even need a press card to be a a public place, take pictures and report? Press cards are used to manage access where the public aren't allowed. Not needed for being in a public place causing no obstruction. I'm minded to turn up myself at the next one.
The Herts Police and Crime Commissioner sounds to me as if he needs gluing to something and leaving there for a while to consider his own position.
|
I don't know the actual circumstances of her arrest but a press card does not (and should not) act as a "get out of jail free" card.
If the police saw an individual, dressed in normal clothing, in the company of others who the police had reason to believe were intent on disruptive protest, the police are entirely within their right to arrest those who they believe are a threat to public order.
I believe in a free press, not one that believes itself above the law.
|
>> I don't know the actual circumstances of her arrest but a press card does not
>> (and should not) act as a "get out of jail free" card.
Why should anyone even need a press card to report from a public place where no exceptional restrictions are in force?
If they were a threat to public order, which I seriously doubt, then they could have been moved on.
The police are going to lose this one.
Last edited by: Manatee on Thu 10 Nov 22 at 15:43
|
Several other photo-journalists were arrested including Tom Bowles. Police searched his home overnight while he was still detained.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11404507/Photographer-filmmaker-arrested-held-overnight-custody-reporting-protest.html
We might not have the full story but I've seen enough, particularly as the police have not deigned to offer any convincing excuse.
|
I'm sure this man wouldn't agree to the support of the protest or those encouraging them.
Ironic that it an LBC story.
www.lbc.co.uk/news/man-who-missed-his-dads-funeral-because-of-just-stop-oil-protests-on-the-m25-sai/
|
>> I'm sure this man wouldn't agree to the support of the protest or those encouraging
>> them.
>>
>> Ironic that it an LBC story.
>>
>> www.lbc.co.uk/news/man-who-missed-his-dads-funeral-because-of-just-stop-oil-protests-on-the-m25-sai/
>>
Are you suggesting the journalists are encouraging them?
|
Not unknown by any means in the journalism world is it?
And without press coverage the protest falls a bit flat.
|
>> Not unknown by any means in the journalism world is it?
>>
>> And without press coverage the protest falls a bit flat.
>>
And of course without journalists and the press the State and it's servants could literally get away with murder.
|
>>And without press coverage the protest falls a bit flat.
I think you've hit the nail on the head there. Quite possibly why the police have been encouraged to to run them in.
I have no doubt that the protesters will have tipped off LBC et al. I would, and so does every PR consultant setting up a photo opp. The Conservative P&CC is quite clearly in sympathy with the actions of the police here.
|
>> I have no doubt that the protesters will have tipped off LBC et al. I
>> would, and so does every PR consultant setting up a photo opp. The Conservative P&CC
>> is quite clearly in sympathy with the actions of the police here.
The State can't have it both ways though, banning the news that they don't want and allowing the news they do want, not in a free state anyway.
Acknowledged that we have DSMA-Notices but they are not legally enforceable.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 10 Nov 22 at 20:06
|
>>The State can't have it both ways though, banning the news that they don't want and allowing the news they do want, not in a free state anyway.
Of course not. They simply shouldn't be banning news or running in reporters. It's pretty clear they don't want the pictures in the papers. The protesters of course do, hence tipping off the press etc.
But the State can if it wants act on deliberate, counterfactual misinformation.
|
As someone has suggested elsewhere: "Why don't the police just handcuff them to whatever they're on and leave them there".
Similar to the protestors who 'superglued' themselves to the showroom floor of a German car dealer. The sttaff turned off the lights and left them to it overnight. The protestors complained the staff didn't give them adequate lavatory facilities, or access to food and water.
|
To be clear FC I am not anti-police. I think the police on the ground have been misused here.
I can't believe that multiple PC's spontaneously took it upon themselves to arrest a total of 7 journos/photographers at different locations, all it seems without preamble or simply trying to move them on if they were deemed to be causing an obstruction or breach of the peace.
It looks very much like a planned attempt at suppressing reporting to me. The only conspiracy here is political.
|
Likewise I'm not for stiffing the freedom of the press. It is fundamental to the freedoms we enjoy.
Provided they act in a responsible and honest manner. As Terry says a press card should not be a 'get out of jail card'.
We all know what and how the Stop Oil activists are operating so its becoming a bit old hat. I'm sure in the early days press coverage was facilitated. But there becomes a point where the freedom to protest has to be weighed against the freedom to continue without interruption to our lives.
In this instance the reporter has the backing of the media as she is one of their own and certainly LBC were were into attack mode before the cell door had shut.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Thu 10 Nov 22 at 17:25
|
Part of an interview with Tom Bowles here.
twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1590432191342952451
Sounds a lot like planned intimidation to me. And possibly the chief planner appears at the end of the video.
|
>> Part of an interview with Tom Bowles here.
>>
>> twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1590432191342952451
>>
>> Sounds a lot like planned intimidation to me. And possibly the chief planner appears at
>> the end of the video.
>>
I'm curious as to why his home was searched on a trivial offence? I wonder what they were looking to find.
|
>> I'm curious as to why his home was searched on a trivial offence? I wonder
>> what they were looking to find.
>>
They were either....
1. Looking for evidence of him communicating with the protesters before he went to the protest.
And / or
2. Looking to intimidate him.
|
Well yes, i suppose it was rhetorical really.
Mind you the police have form for getting wrapped the axle with this sort of thing. Look at all the nonsense with the peace protester groups they used undercover officers in.
|
www.car4play.com/redirect.php?https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1590432191342952451
Another example of selective and less than transparent journalism. It appeared he was put in the back of a van and his shoes, belt etc were removed.
The camera changed just after he said he was put in the back of the van. Normal procedure is not to remove those items until custody is authorised in the custody suite not in the back of a van. The film was edited.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Thu 10 Nov 22 at 19:50
|
|
The edit was obvious, I didn't infer that his belt and shoes were removed at that point. It was a minute or so out of a longer interview for a tweet.
|
The camera changed just after he said he was put in the back of the
>> van. Normal procedure is not to remove those items until custody is authorised in the
>> custody suite not in the back of a van. The film was edited.
>>
I'm sure it was edited, however I don't think with much ill will. I don't think there's many that care if shoes are removed in the van or cell. More of a time edit, rather than some idea to influence the masses.
|
|
I'm totally sure even the police recognise that arresting journos will absolutely not suppress any reporting.
|
>>I'm totally sure even the police recognise that arresting journos will absolutely not suppress any reporting.
You're dealing with Braverman here. Did you never find it your job that the senior management wanted things done that made no sense at all? It's an experience most people have had I think.
Last edited by: Manatee on Thu 10 Nov 22 at 18:10
|
>> You're dealing with Braverman here.
No you are dealing with people who are actively obstructing us in our daily lives. People have been injured, someone shortly will die.
anything is fair game to halt this crap
|
>You're dealing with Braverman here...
I think your tinfoil headgear might be leaking Manatee. Braverman might have told plod to get tougher with the protesters but I doubt that she dictated their tactics.
Otherwise we'd have seen snipers there.
|
We seem to have competing conspiracy theories:
1. Plod acting on the instructions of the Home Secretary want to suppress the press
2. Journos deliberately engineered their arrest to create column inches
3. Protesters deliberately involved the journos to get publicity for their cause
It is not clear whether the treatment of the journos arrested was consistent with normal and proper procedure that would have applied to the arrest of any protester - eg: removal of shoes and belts, phone etc.
There may even have been no conspiracy at all - simply local plod who should have applied better judgement before they were arrested - eg: check out press credentials.
In the absence of real evidence or independent enquiry, an opportunity for anyone to choose the explanation which best matches their preconceptions.
|
www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/09/education-secretary-arrest-lbc-journalist-just-stop-oil-protest#:~:text=The%20chief%20constable%20of%20Hertfordshire,an%20intervention%20by%20Downing%20Street.
The Chief Constable of Herts Police "has promised an investigation into the arrests of journalists covering climate protests, amid accusations the force was threatening press freedom". As if he doesn't know.
There's talk of future arrangements to allow "legitimate media" to report on protests. What about normal freedoms?
FWIW, whilst the right to protest must be preserved, I think the Stop Oil protesters should focus their protests on Westminster tube station, Parliament Square, Downing Street etc and inconvenience the decision makers rather than people using the M25.
|
>> Otherwise we'd have seen snipers there.
Well done Kev, the sniper threat cracked it.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-63594641
|
>> Their behaviour can be confrontational and antagonistic.
Not grounds for arrest though.
|
>> The police officers who arrested the journalists were, as I suspected, ordered to do so
>> by senior officers.
After a very quick read, it does appear that the order was to arrest anyone and everyone, rather than specifically go for journalists, but still wrong as there needs to be necessity.
|
|
Wrong perhaps but at the end of the day hardly the end of the world. The police were under great pressure by the government an the public to clear the protestors. As a result of the action a few journalists were detained for a few hours. Bit of a none story
|
>> Wrong perhaps but at the end of the day hardly the end of the world.
>> The police were under great pressure by the government an the public to clear the
>> protestors. As a result of the action a few journalists were detained for a few
>> hours. Bit of a none story
>>
Seriously? If you were just looking for a reaction you've got one.
Were they arrested because or in spite of being journals? Had it been you on a public footpath watching the proceedings would they have carted you off?
It's not simpler incompetence. Police officers know very well the acceptable reasons for arrest. It's sinister. The people in charge don't care for the law or accountability. They are basically banning protest, and these people weren't even protesting.
|
|
I think you tend to see conspiracy where there is none. At the end of the day there was no harm done. Yes a few journos were detained for a few hours when perhaps they shouldn’t have been. Hardly the end of the world. The police were under pressure to get the traffic moving. That the did. Nobody’s banning protest, just trying to stop illegal obstruction. Mistakes are made sometimes, that’s life.
|
I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm including here the public order bill going through parliament.
justice.org.uk/public-order-bill/
No harm done here - now that the police's wrongful behaviour has been publicised and matters put right - but it's clear where this is going and the police were just jumping the gun.
First they came for...etc.
Listen to Braverman. The hard right are pretty much out of control now, Sunak just gets his head in the numbers and hopes it will all go away.
|
>> I think you tend to see conspiracy where there is none. At the end of
>> the day there was no harm done. Yes a few journos were detained for a
>> few hours when perhaps they shouldn’t have been. Hardly the end of the world. The
>> police were under pressure to get the traffic moving. That the did. Nobody’s banning protest,
>> just trying to stop illegal obstruction. Mistakes are made sometimes, that’s life.
Seriously? This is not theory, conspiracy or otherwise. Conspiracy theories in the sense I suspect you mean are nonsense.
@ CGN et al as applicable.
Whilst no lasting harm may have been done in this case, harm certainly was done at the time in the arrest of people (whether because they were journalists or not) who were committing no offence, not taking part in the protest, and were (e.g.) on a public footpath. That has been rectified; and has been admitted to have been wrong so put that in your pipe:)
We now know that senior officers (plural) ordered the arrests, whether simultaneously and coincidentally on their own authority or as a result of direction from higher up. It was not therefore a procedural blunder by some ignorant but well meaning constables in the heat and excitement of the moment.
I am not just thinking of this case, nasty as it is.
The government, or part of it, wants basically to stop protest.
justice.org.uk/public-order-bill/
This is fundamental stuff, nothing to do with the views of "the liberal left" which is usually used as an insult BTW. If the liberal left (and right) are pointing this out, then maybe they are just more alert than some others.
In fact senior police officers themselves have pointed out the unacceptable limitations on civil liberties being proposed.
As it happens I am a big fan of law and order, but I don't think it helps police officers to be given draconian powers which then makes them responsible for the degree of restriction/oppression/force or whatever is at issue that should apply in a given situation.
The public are entitled to protest peacefully and to have reasonable freedom to do so. That cannot be guaranteed if the police have more or less unlimited power to decide what is OK and what is not. Equally if I were a police officer I would want to know what the rules are so that I could apply them without being expected to make instant decisions on matters that a court would take days or weeks over. I'm not going to go searching for citations but it was pretty clear in this case that at least some of the junior officers involved were unsure why they were arresting the journos and whether they should be doing it.
Freedom to protest may well exclude the right to destroy or damage property or wilfully obstruct specified activities by throwing soup about or gluing themselves to transport infrastructure but it must not for example restrict freedom of expression, and right of assembly and/or association which is what the government appears to want.
Wedge, thin end of. First they came...etc.
Last edited by: Manatee on Thu 24 Nov 22 at 14:51
|
Its not sinister, it is more or less, BAU. There has always been a tendency by the police to detain everyone and everything moving around a large public order incident, sorting out the wheat from the chaf later when things are understood and calmer.
It becomes sinister, evil and worrying when authorities prosecute or jail the press for being there and doing their job. As it does in many other countries with repressive regimes.
|
Yes, that's about it from Z.
I remember my mate telling me about getting a rather high handed approach once from a store detective who thought (wrongly) he might have nicked something. The bloke said he has to deal with all sorts and wasn't to know whether my mate was a mild mannered person or an axe murderer. Not quite the same as here I know, but it does help you realise that you can't always a judge a book by its cover.
|
>>there was no harm done
I disagree.
The journalists were denied their liberty, albeit for up to a day. One's home was raided in the middle of the night.
OK, it's not as bad as in some banana republics but the key is the police did not follow the law.
They did not have reasonable suspicion or necessity as confirmed in the report by a senior officer from a different force.
The police will not be sanctioned for this, they will not be arrested or face court for doing this (if you did this you could spend most of your life behind bars).
And the main point is, that if it carries on and gets progressively worse, then we will end up with a police force suitable for a banana republic.
|
"And the main point is, that if it carries on and gets progressively worse, then we will end up with a police force suitable for a banana republic."
I doubt that very much. The liberal left, media and judicial system have backed the most accountable Police Service in the world into such a tight corner that it is almost impotent.
Meanwhile the law abiding silent majority watch in despair as the country goes to the dogs.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Thu 24 Nov 22 at 12:59
|
>>The liberal left.....
I think the significant budget cuts from 2010 on have left the police short of 20,000 officers and poor vetting, training and targets over the last 12 years have contributed to a general decline.
From my experience, individual officers are great. It's the police "corporation" that has some strange priorities that don't square with what the public expects.
The judicial system is controlled by the Govt. The country has kept the Tories in for the last 12 years. The underfunded, under-resourced criminal justice system is what they want.
And of course there are the arrest for strange things like a bloke arrested for posting a meme mocking a protest group's logo or more importantly the Harry Miller case. How many millions did that cost?
|
>
>> Meanwhile the law abiding silent majority watch in despair as the country goes to the
>> dogs.
>>
People have been saying that for decades if not centuries. If it were true, it'd all be lord of the flies by now.
|
All three journalists arrested this week covering Just Stop Oil were arrested under “suspicion of conspiracy to commit a public nuisance.” It is a new crime introduced as part of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act. It carries prison time of up to ten years in jail.
Call me a tinfoil hatter if you want, but this looks like the thin end of a very oppressive policy. I think the lads were told to give it a practice run. Hopefully the reaction will give them pause.
|
I think the police have a difficult balance between:
- defending the right of people to protest, vs
- the right of others to engage in normal activity without being unreasonably inconvenienced
"Unreasonable" is a matter of circumstance and judgement. It is likely there will be no consensus on the right balance - at an extreme:
- some would argue that the climate issue is so real and profound that all tactics are acceptable to achieve change - a real revolutionary zeal where no actions are off the agenda.
- others regard it as unacceptable that business, jobs and lives are put at risk by the disruption; that violently dragging protestors off the road for immediate incarceration is the best policy response.
Just Stop Oil have a very legitimate point to make re climate change, but their actions are alienating far more of the public than garnering support. They need to find a different way.
The balance struck by the police will respond to some extent to both political and public opinion - many will be pleased that the police are now acting with resolve rather than the "give them a cup of coffee" tactics that sometimes previously prevailed.
|
Holding a press card does not put you above the law.
If the police are instructed through the command chain, or officers on the ground so assess, they are entirely right to arrest whoever they believe it is appropriate,
On validating a journalists credentials and confirming their presence was to report and not participate, they should be released immediately.
As the police priority was understandably to control the demo, it is unsurprising that release of journalists took a little time - no doubt made more difficult by reductions in police numbers.
The point at which their actions reflect those of a police state is opaque - but this incident does not evidence the line has been crossed (IMHO).
|
>> Holding a press card does not put you above the law.
>>
>> If the police are instructed through the command chain, or officers on the ground so
>> assess, they are entirely right to arrest whoever they believe it is appropriate,
>>
Actually that's not how it is supposed to work. The senior officer cannot say go and arrest anyone you find here. They cannot for example say go and arrest "Bob, he's a known burglar and we had a burglary on the patch last night." They must pass on enough information to give their lower officers their own reasonable suspicion. The subtle difference would be "Go and arrest Bob, someone matching his description was seen committing this burglary last night". To order everyone's arrest at a particular location is therefore not appropriate as the officers did not have reasonable suspicion.
>> On validating a journalists credentials and confirming their presence was to report and not participate,
>> they should be released immediately.
>>
But they were not were they. They were held for hours and over night and their houses were raided in the middle of the night and searched.
Even the Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire Police has said that the arresting force (Herts) was wrong. They acted illegally. Is that not enough - the police did something that is illegal and there will be absolutely no repercussions on the officers responsible.
Which in effect means that they got away with kidnap, assault, trespass, probably criminal damage and when the journalists get damages then it is we who will pay, not the officers who broke the law.
In context, if I did something similar at work, I could get up to 10 years and an unlimited fine and I don't deal with peoples freedoms.
Last edited by: zippy on Thu 24 Nov 22 at 16:05
|
>> Which in effect means that they got away with kidnap, assault, trespass, probably criminal damage
I have never seen such a huge leap of fantasy in all my life. It is nothing of the sort. You are now spouting rubbsh
|
>> I have never seen such a huge leap of fantasy in all my life. It
>> is nothing of the sort. You are now spouting rubbsh
One can quibble over whether wrongful arrest/detention equates with kidnap.
OTOH assault (in the course of wrongful arrest) and trespass/criminal damage when unlawfully searching homes is pretty accurate.
|
>> I have never seen such a huge leap of fantasy in all my life.
I think you probably have:)
Kidnap - check (turns out it was illegal)
Assault - check (if I laid hands on a PC that could well be the charge - see above)
Trespass - check (assuming there were also in the wrong with the search, following on from the above)
Criminal Damage - mmm. Maybe not, but that was qualified with "probably". I think we would probably have heard, had they used the big red key.
Plus theft? Didn't they go off with a laptop?
With only a moderate degree of artistic licence.
Mistakes have been made, and apologies tendered I believe. Let's not lose sight of the really problematic stuff in the amendments to the Public Order Bill.
|
"Plus theft? Didn't they go off with a laptop?"
Not theft unless they dishonestly appropriated and their intention was to permanently deprive.
|
>> "Plus theft? Didn't they go off with a laptop?"
>>
>> Not theft unless they dishonestly appropriated and their intention was to permanently deprive.
You can take it that I am aware of that aspect of the legal definition:)
In fact I'd be pretty put out if they took mine in that way and I'm sure most would be. I would be expecting them to search the laptop - whether they got that far I don't know, but that is a pretty high level of intrusion.
|
> Not theft unless they dishonestly appropriated and their intention was to permanently deprive.
>>
I was just borrowing it. Honest m'lud.
|
>> With only a moderate degree of artistic licence.
Sorry now parked you in the Zippy tin foil hat, fantasy paranoid land.
|
>>
>> >> With only a moderate degree of artistic licence.
>>
>> Sorry now parked you in the Zippy tin foil hat, fantasy paranoid land.
Your prerogative.
It's not paranoia when the government really is giving itself Draconian powers.
I don't indulge in conspiracy theories. There is usually a fairly obvious explanation for what's going on. In this case it is some bad people, and some weak people, in government.
|
'in the Zippy tin foil hat, fantasy paranoid land'
Known as the US of A.
|
Kidnap. Assault, Trespass and Criminal damage.
Jeez! That's really milking the faux shock and horror. Straight from the Journalist's handbook.
All those processes generally follow one after the other whether the initial arrest is correct or flawed.
Certainly Criminal Damage encompasses 'without lawful authority or reasonable excuse'.
So there may be an arguments and a case for wrongful arrests and even compensation but that where it stops.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Thu 24 Nov 22 at 17:15
|
>> Kidnap. Assault, Trespass and Criminal damage.
>>
>> Jeez! That's really milking the faux shock and horror. Straight from the Journalist's handbook.
Of course it is. Hyperbole. Rhetoric.
To try and take it literally in order to pick at it is also legitimate tool of debate.
They were right out of order.
|
I think in cases like this it'd be best to understand the motivation behind the decision, are they lazy, authoritarian, person gain, organisational gain etc. That way you can better understand what went on and why.
We'll probably never know though.
|
From the NUJ website:
"A Press Card is designed to allow journalists access to places that may be limited to the public because the authorities have placed restrictions on an area or because there are commercial limitations such as at sports grounds, theatres or clubs. The card is designed to identify the holder as a journalist there to report an event. The card supports the principle of a free media in that it should allow them unfettered access to the event provided they are there as an observer planning to report the event and not a participant or activist"
The critical point is the last sentence - present as an observer or participant. There may be little to differentiate the two in terms of appearance and behaviour
The press (many, not all) have fallen far short of the standards expected to retain public trust. Reporting of events is frequently skewed to meet preconceived conclusions. It is understandable that the police first remove them from the scene, and then properly confirm their credentials and intentions.
Last edited by: Terry on Thu 24 Nov 22 at 18:14
|
>> The press (many, not all) have fallen far short of the standards expected to retain
>> public trust.
At the moment, the politicians are setting a very low bar for standards. Journalists are amateurs.
>>Reporting of events is frequently skewed to meet preconceived conclusions.
Bias is everywhere, always. Even I am biased, no matter how hard I try to be objective. That's why we need rules and why it's important they are observed.
>>It is understandable
>> that the police first remove them from the scene, and then properly confirm their credentials
>> and intentions.
Which is very open to abuse, and I believe that is what we have just seen.
"The police have five main powers of arrest. These are to:
- arrest, without a warrant, anyone they suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offence (and they believe that an arrest is necessary)
- execute arrest warrants issued by the court
- arrest those who fail to answer or breach their bail conditions and those who breach the conditions of a Police Caution
- arrest those who breach a court order or injunction
- arrest those they suspect have ‘breached the peace’ or are threatening to do so."
It sounds as if none of these applied, because if it did then the arrests would not have been judged to be illegal.
A speculative arrest is in the vast majority of cases be an illegal one (is my non-expert instinct).
Of course, you have nothing to fear of you haven't done anything wrong:)
The police can ask me any questions they want, but if they cart me off without good reason I will not pretend it's OK.
|
"- arrest those they suspect have ‘breached the peace’ or are threatening to do so."
Blocking a motorway may be deemed as 'breaching the peace'?
|
|
I don't believe any of the journalists were blocking the motorways, as they were closed.
|
>> "- arrest those they suspect have ‘breached the peace’ or are threatening to do so."
>>
>> Blocking a motorway may be deemed as 'breaching the peace'?
I agree. But they weren't. Or threatening to. Could the officers reasonably suspect they might? I don't think so. Hence the 'conspiracy' idea which I think is the pretext that was used?
A memory.
In a past life I had to recover some property belonging to the company I worked for. In this case, a car. I had a key for it, but it was parked right under the office window of the rather volatile individual whose possession it was in.
I was a bit concerned that if he got to me he would be violent, so I asked a policeman (there were police stations you could go into then) if he or one of his colleagues might come and help.
The first answer was "no, it's a civil matter". Then after a pause for thought, he said "Is there likely to be a breach of the peace?". I said "Yes, if he gets hold of me". "Right then" says he "where is it?"
Ever since then I have believed that if I need to persuade the police to attend anywhere, all I have to say is "I think there's going to be a breach of the peace." Am I labouring under a misapprehension?
|
>> "- arrest those they suspect have ‘breached the peace’ or are threatening to do so."
>>
>> Blocking a motorway may be deemed as 'breaching the peace'?
>>
I was under the impression that if you are arrested for BOTP then you must be released as soon as the breach or threat is over, so once removed from the motorway or far enough away not to run back, but no. 24 hours in the clink.
|
>>Reporting of events is frequently skewed to meet preconceived conclusions
When has it ever been different!? Every single newspaper proprietor wants to get their point of view across.
|
>> So there may be an arguments and a case for wrongful arrests and even compensation
>> but that where it stops.
>>
....ah, that's alright then. :-(
|
I'm sure the LBC journo was on a footbridge overlooking the activities when she was nicked and quite distentic from the protesters (her account when it was brought up on NFs radio show),
|
Police Arresting Journalists - Zero
