SOCPA: AR activists due in Crown Court
North West | 01.02.2007 02:14 | Animal Liberation | Birmingham
May 9th 2006 almost a dozen animal rights activists in the West Midlands had their doors violently kicked in simultaneously at 7am in different locations throughout of the region.
'Operation Tornado' raids were manned by 120 officers +
Hundreds of items were taken from homes and all activists targetted were arrested, locked up and questioned for up to sixteen hours, some given only a bag of salted crisps and an apple during their long stay at certain police stations.
Arrests were made under Sec 145 + Sec 146 SOCPA 2005.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2005/20050015.htm
The defendents had allegedly held placards and used megaphones outside an animal testing company in Herefordshire and outside the premises of its suppliers between June 1st 2005/ May 2006.
More info in the archives section at http://www.vivisection.info/netcu_watch/
Conviction under Sec 145 + Sec 146 SOCPA 2005 = 5 years maximum/ £5,000 fine or both.
'Operation Tornado' raids were manned by 120 officers +
Hundreds of items were taken from homes and all activists targetted were arrested, locked up and questioned for up to sixteen hours, some given only a bag of salted crisps and an apple during their long stay at certain police stations.
Arrests were made under Sec 145 + Sec 146 SOCPA 2005.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2005/20050015.htm The defendents had allegedly held placards and used megaphones outside an animal testing company in Herefordshire and outside the premises of its suppliers between June 1st 2005/ May 2006.
More info in the archives section at
http://www.vivisection.info/netcu_watch/ Conviction under Sec 145 + Sec 146 SOCPA 2005 = 5 years maximum/ £5,000 fine or both.
North West
Additions
oh what a lovely act
01.02.2007 08:57
so far, most of the SOCPA stories on indymedia have been to do with the protest exclusion zone around parliament, but this act also contains other random clauses of interest and repressive danger.
first, the areas that exclude protest can be easily added to, and indeed already include several military bases (including american ones) so that it becomes an imprisonable offence to enter one. this law has already been used.
next, we have the above mentioned sect 145, relating to:
"Protection of activities of certain organisations
145 Interference with contractual relationships so as to harm animal research organisation"
and it would be relatively easy for the secretary of state to add protection to other dubious big businesses, perhaps arms, then oil, then any!
oh, and also there is a section on harrassment which as far as i know hasn't been invoked yet, but can easily be interpreted to clamp down on virtually any kind of protest.
but for anyone that tries to 'confound' the law on the parliament exclusion zone, the government doesn't even need socpa - they can just resort to good old harrassment, threats, and violence - see barbara tucker http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/02/361225.html
oh and have you heard the new one about the bailiffs? they now have the power to enter properties using force and to also use reasonably force in order to 'carry out their duties'. this is likely to impinge on brave souls like chris coverdale (withholding taxes for five years and trying to get a court to prove to him how he can avoid aiding and abetting a war crime by funding the state that has begun an illegal war), or milan rai and maya evans, (who are refusing to pay court fines imposed for 'unauthorised' demonstration near parliament - the reading out of names of the dead opposite whitehall).
now, their principled stands will not get any airing in court, nor the oxygen of publicity. instead, state sponsored thugs in civilian clothes will break into their homes and remove goods, attacking them if they offer any resistance, and it's all legal.
who's still worried about britain creeping towards becoming a fascist state?
first, the areas that exclude protest can be easily added to, and indeed already include several military bases (including american ones) so that it becomes an imprisonable offence to enter one. this law has already been used.
next, we have the above mentioned sect 145, relating to:
"Protection of activities of certain organisations
145 Interference with contractual relationships so as to harm animal research organisation"
and it would be relatively easy for the secretary of state to add protection to other dubious big businesses, perhaps arms, then oil, then any!
oh, and also there is a section on harrassment which as far as i know hasn't been invoked yet, but can easily be interpreted to clamp down on virtually any kind of protest.
but for anyone that tries to 'confound' the law on the parliament exclusion zone, the government doesn't even need socpa - they can just resort to good old harrassment, threats, and violence - see barbara tucker
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/02/361225.html oh and have you heard the new one about the bailiffs? they now have the power to enter properties using force and to also use reasonably force in order to 'carry out their duties'. this is likely to impinge on brave souls like chris coverdale (withholding taxes for five years and trying to get a court to prove to him how he can avoid aiding and abetting a war crime by funding the state that has begun an illegal war), or milan rai and maya evans, (who are refusing to pay court fines imposed for 'unauthorised' demonstration near parliament - the reading out of names of the dead opposite whitehall).
now, their principled stands will not get any airing in court, nor the oxygen of publicity. instead, state sponsored thugs in civilian clothes will break into their homes and remove goods, attacking them if they offer any resistance, and it's all legal.
who's still worried about britain creeping towards becoming a fascist state?
rikki
Comments
Hide the following 8 comments
stop it!
01.02.2007 12:17
This is simply not true, please stop repeating the nonsense idea that s132 and s128 are the same, misinformation about the law helps nobody.
ACAB
some clarification
01.02.2007 17:22
anyway, i have now been reliably (i hope) corrected, that:
"while there are similar agendas behind both sections 128 and 132 there are absolutely no legal or practical similarities and you appear disingenuous conflating the two. Those are not additional "designated areas" (cf s132). Rather, they were "designated sites" (cf s128) and are now more clearly referred to as "protected sites" (cf s12 Terrorism Act 2006)."
thanks for that, and indeed it's good someone cleared that up
perhaps someone could also post the references about harrassment that i mentioned above but haven't had time to find as more things are afoot in whitehall this afternoon - another arrest for breach of bail conditions!
rikki
Re:some clarification
01.02.2007 20:51
The two laws obviously do both affect our freedoms. The s130 removes the freedom to protest around parliament. s128 removes the freedom to do anything at all (not just protest) in the selected areas (whether referred to as designated areas/designated sites or protected sites). And can anyone sincerely say s128 was not directed at peace protestors at a time when Blair is desperate to disable any effective opposition to his deadly massacre in Iraq? And at a time when there have been ZERO attempts by the 'terrorists' to target these sites?
Brian B
if ignorance is bliss, knock the smile off my face...
02.02.2007 10:41
If that is the case, could you perhaps offer some example of the freedoms that were previously available within the perimeters of these military and nuclear facilities that are now no longer enjoyed?
ACAB
Re:if ignorance is bliss
03.02.2007 01:57
Brian B
Re:if ignorance is bliss
07.02.2007 11:37
ACAB
Trespass.
20.02.2007 20:41
Brian B"
To be charged under these new laws the CPS have to prove loss due to the trespass and it isn't enough to convict for just trespass.
Activist.
bemused
23.02.2007 16:54
All replies have completely ignored this fact even in the light of socpa being used predominantly against AR activists.
Oh well, some people seem so single minded that post to imc.
27 animal rights - YES 27 - arrests so far up to date under socpa 2005. 15 charged, others pending.
SOC's