Smash EDO camp and actions continue despite police repression
dismantle the war machine | 29.08.2007 17:23 | Anti-militarism | Repression | Terror War | London | South Coast
At about lunch time today, fifteen cops arrived on site and seized one tent which someone was sleeping in at the time.
Between 3pm and 3:30pm there was an action where someone attempted to lock-on to a TNT lorry which had just come from the EDO depot at the bottom of Home Farm Road. Whilst someone attempted to lock-on to the lorry they were arrested. Police then searched the four other people present and came back to seize a video camera. During the process of seizing the video camera, a woman was arrested for "obstructing a police officer". Both arrestees are at Hollingbury police station.
Despite the bylaw that materialised this morning, where Sussex Police claimed protesters couldn't make any noise, there was a very successful noise demo from 4pm - 6pm.
The protester who was bitten by the EDO security guard's dog yesterday has been hospitalised. He has damage to a tendon and is awaiting surgery in hospital. The police failed to take any action against the dog at the time even though it also bit an EDO member of staff.
The Smash EDO camp is still very operational and it's warm enough to sleep out despite the lack of tents and the atmosphere is nice and relaxed.
More news as it comes tomorrow..
Between 3pm and 3:30pm there was an action where someone attempted to lock-on to a TNT lorry which had just come from the EDO depot at the bottom of Home Farm Road. Whilst someone attempted to lock-on to the lorry they were arrested. Police then searched the four other people present and came back to seize a video camera. During the process of seizing the video camera, a woman was arrested for "obstructing a police officer". Both arrestees are at Hollingbury police station.
Despite the bylaw that materialised this morning, where Sussex Police claimed protesters couldn't make any noise, there was a very successful noise demo from 4pm - 6pm.
The protester who was bitten by the EDO security guard's dog yesterday has been hospitalised. He has damage to a tendon and is awaiting surgery in hospital. The police failed to take any action against the dog at the time even though it also bit an EDO member of staff.
The Smash EDO camp is still very operational and it's warm enough to sleep out despite the lack of tents and the atmosphere is nice and relaxed.
More news as it comes tomorrow..
dismantle the war machine
Homepage:
http://www.smashedo.org.uk/
Comments
Hide the following 3 comments
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
29.08.2007 22:33
(1) If a dog is dangerously out of control in a public place—
(a) the owner; and
(b) if different, the person for the time being in charge of the dog,
is guilty of an offence, or, if the dog while so out of control injures any person, an aggravated offence, under this subsection.
(2) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) above against a person who is the owner of a dog but was not at the material time in charge of it, it shall be a defence for the accused to prove that the dog was at the material time in the charge of a person whom he reasonably believed to be a fit and proper person to be in charge of it.
(3) If the owner or, if different, the person for the time being in charge of a dog allows it to enter a place which is not a public place but where it is not permitted to be and while it is there—
(a) it injures any person; or
(b) there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will do so,
he is guilty of an offence, or, if the dog injures any person, an aggravated offence, under this subsection.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) or (3) above other than an aggravated offence is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both; and a person guilty of an aggravated offence under either of those subsections is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both.
(5) It is hereby declared for the avoidance of doubt that an order under section 2 of the [1871 c. 56.] Dogs Act 1871 (order on complaint that dog is dangerous and not kept under proper control)—
(a) may be made whether or not the dog is shown to have injured any person; and
(b) may specify the measures to be taken for keeping the dog under proper control, whether by muzzling, keeping on a lead, excluding it from specified places or otherwise.
me
Dangerous dogs act? Yeah Sure!
30.08.2007 05:53
Itsme
not a police dog
30.08.2007 10:43
maybe different legal position
dogboy