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
Display the following 8 comments