nice one with the protests at Elsevier by the way - those corporations both active and complicit in the arms trade have names and addresses and they're certainly on the map now :)

>> One cop was trying to get names and addresses from people claiming the anti-social behaviour act forces you to give your details. Can anyone confirm/deny this (with chapter and verse if possible)? What would the consequences of refusal be?

They tried this on with us but failed miserably in Solihell last year. A load of Solihell's 'finest' turned up in a van at a small noise protest outside Caterkiller's finance headquarters. They gave us an ultimatum to either give them our names and addresses or they would arrest us under anti-social behaviour legislation. They couldn't really tell us what law they were using and all of us refused to give them our details as we hadn't committed an offence. They decided to illegally arrest us all and unlawfully detain us for some time at different police stations in Brum. They also refused us access to solicitors whilst they 'verified our identities' even though some of us had I.D. Before they dropped the charges on us they also managed to drag us to court a few times and tried to intimidate us with van loads of cops dressed in public order garb 'protecting' the court. It was great for publicity but a considerable waste of public money!

The upshot of all this is we're sueing them for illegal arrest, unlawful detention and malicious prosecution and now when people protest at the same site the cops are much better behaved and allow people the right to protest lawfully outside.

So i guess the answer is they can attempt to do this like they do with most things that are clearly against the law but it's in everyone's interest to resist them. So resist their attempts to intimidate you and refuse to give them your details - DEFEND YOUR RIGHT TO PROTEST!

This is the act they were using - see blow info from free beagles. They showed me the legislation in their book. The anti social behaviour i was apparently commiting was walking alongside someone who had refused a leaflet and trying to persuade them to take one. i was warned if i did anything again that they considered to consitute harrassment i would be arrested. This later included walking towards someone to give a leaflet. (i was told i could walk alongside people but not in front of them).
When the action started we were having long indepth conversations with the people outside the building about Reed Elsevier adn DSEi and the arms trade. As the police intimidation increased it was difficult to even give away a leaflet - and yet they claim to be trying to 'help' us and to 'facilitate' our protest. I asked them if they had ever read 1984.

On Reed Elsevier- Reed Elsevier is largely a publishing company. The people working for RE didn't sign up to a company that is an integral part of the UK (and global) arms industry. they don't consider themselves to be part of that industry. May of them may be anti war, anti arrms, anti militarism. many of them won't want their company to be part of the arms trade just as we don't, so they are potential allies in our campaign to stop DSEi. DSEi is a small part of what Reed Elsevier do and it should be made into a major liability for the company.



Section 50 Police Reform Act 2002

A recent development in police attempts to gain activist’s details is the use of Section 50 of the Police Reform Act 2002. This makes it an offence to refuse to give your name and address to a police officer, where the officer reasonably suspects that you have engaged in “anti-social behaviour”. “Anti-social behaviour” is defined as behaviour that has caused harassment, alarm or distress to other people, so it’s not difficult for the police to say that they suspect this in protest situations. Section 50 carries no specific power of arrest, but if you refuse to give your name and address, then the police can say that they suspect you of committing a non-arrestable offence and Section 25 PACE applies – see Sections 2 and 3 above.

The use by the police of this power will at some stage be challenged in court, as it was not designed to deal with political protest but with anti-social behaviour, for example by youths on housing estates. But certain police forces - notably Staffordshire – are currently using the power, and you should be aware that they could arrest you if you refuse to give details when required under this Section. There is no requirement under Section 50 to give your date of birth.
 http://www.freebeagles.org/articles/carrying_id.html

Its not legal and is considered to be 'obstructing a police officer in the execution of their duty'.

So, be warned, it would be silly to be arrested for something so petty, and if you believe in the action you are taking, why WOULD you refuse to give your details ? Sounds like some people don't have the bottle to stand up for what they believe.

There are activists and there are 'activists' and there are law students and there are 'law students' - and you sir need to have a think about what you're being taught at college as soon as you've taken your tongue out of the backside of authority:

Even members of the House of Lords seem to have a better idea of the implications of using Anti-social legislation on protestors.........

See for example Hansard:  http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds05/text/50523-01.htm

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they propose to issue guidance to local and police authorities to prevent applications for anti-social behaviour orders whose primary effect would be to prevent individuals undertaking peaceful political protest.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, our publication, A Guide to Anti-Social Behaviour Orders and Acceptable Behaviour Contracts, together with information provided by our TOGETHER website and action line, provides comprehensive guidance for all practitioners, including police authorities. We do not feel it necessary to issue specific guidance to police authorities at this time. Legislation and guidance clearly sets out the conditions that must be met before an anti-social behaviour order can be made. It is up to local courts to determine whether ASBOs are necessary in individual cases.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for making it plain towards what a disgraceful state of affairs we are heading. Does she think that a very dangerous precedent has been set by the Ministry of Defence Police applying for an ASBO to prevent a peace campaigner from peacefully protesting? Does she really think that when Parliament passed that legislation, it intended that ASBOs should be used by government agencies who find a particular protest annoying or embarrassing?



Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister accept that in the case to which my noble friend Lady Miller referred the question of bad behaviour is of a totally different order from that for which ASBOs were created? Many Labour Members have themselves taken part in peaceful political protest ..........

Now they of course were aware that the protestor in question was doing something rather more challenging than handing out leaflets in the time honoured old way - but our old "activist' and 'law student' thinks that the plod should be allowed to take our names, even when he is clearly exceeding his authority. I bet that the pigs never use the information for the purpose for which it was intended either. Maybe he was taking it so that the activist could be illegally added to some database - but how can we expect an 'activist' and 'law student' to see the dangers of leafletters being added to illegal databases?

*sigh*

protesta

They can only arrest for as long as it takes to verify your ID, and of course being pigs they'll break the law and detain you for longer to "teach you a lesson" so you'll be able to sue them for bucks - but don't use our 'activist' and 'law student' to pursue your action........

It isn't anti-social behaviour - the legislation wasn't intended to be used against protestors - and its worth being arrested just to show solidarity with the unfortunate victims of this draconian legislation - the majority of whom are poor working class kids with lawyers who probably went to the same law school as our friend above.

In many situations it's possible to refuse giving your name and address to police. Everyone is a lot better off refusing to co-operate with the police- enmass. As for sticking up for what i believe in - i don't need to be a martyr, remember, think with your feet and act firm to destroy all authority

FUCK ALL STATE CONTROL - ATTACK THE STATE

Dear Law Student

Giving in to the police only encourages them to abuse their powers even more. From an activist perspective the advice you have given will only lead to longer term problems. A problem in the UK is that there are not enough people standing up and challenging the police at every point, of making a point of risking getting arrested in order to protect their liberties. This woolly, middleclass thinking is an actual danger to our freedoms. It is often from little actions that bigger things are decided.And one should never let the police get away with blatant bullying like this.

For those who want to know more about how to be pro-active and protect your rights come along to the Freedom To Protest conference on 23rd Oct, London - see www.freedomtoprotest.org.uk for more information

TaRa

Pics