Police threatened to arrest leafletters outside Blue Arrow on Queens Rd in Brighton this afternoon. A seargeant used the Secondary Picketting Act 1992 setion 224 (2) under Trades Disputes law on 3 people handing out leaflets to passers by.
Initially Police Community Support Officers turned up in response to a call that the 3 women inside Blue Arrow felt threatened by the 5 males handing out leaflets outside. This is despite no-one having entered Blue Arrow or in any other way attempting communication with the staff. By the time 2 real cops turned up 3 leafletters were left who weren't prepared to get nicked as they had shit to do.
They went down the road to the station where they were then hassled by a British Transport Policeman who threatened to nick them as they hadn't received permission from 'the railways'. The 3 then retired to the public highway outside the ststion where the BTP told them he'd rather they moved further away, ie. in the direction of Blue Arrow, as there could be an assumption that they were on station property and 'the railways' didn't necessarily support their views. The 3 stood their ground this time, a bold move in a city where the police have a strong tradtion of clamping down on protest, but escaped further harassment - the police are colluding with local arms dealers EDO MBM to get an Injunction against protesters and protests in Churchill Square are regularly targetted by the Sussex Constabulary.
Could someone please advise on the validity of such Secondary Picketting legislation - other peaceful pickets don't seem to come in for such heavy-handed treatment.
They went down the road to the station where they were then hassled by a British Transport Policeman who threatened to nick them as they hadn't received permission from 'the railways'. The 3 then retired to the public highway outside the ststion where the BTP told them he'd rather they moved further away, ie. in the direction of Blue Arrow, as there could be an assumption that they were on station property and 'the railways' didn't necessarily support their views. The 3 stood their ground this time, a bold move in a city where the police have a strong tradtion of clamping down on protest, but escaped further harassment - the police are colluding with local arms dealers EDO MBM to get an Injunction against protesters and protests in Churchill Square are regularly targetted by the Sussex Constabulary.
Could someone please advise on the validity of such Secondary Picketting legislation - other peaceful pickets don't seem to come in for such heavy-handed treatment.
Comments
Hide the following 2 comments
According to Liberty
02.09.2005 21:34
Police Powers and Picketing
Giving the police greater power to control and restrict picketing was a primary purpose of the POA. Any picket of two or more people is a 'public assembly' and therefore subject to police conditions under the POA. In addition to the power to impose conditions, the police possess a wide range of public order powers to restrict and control picketing and to arrest pickets for various offences. These include:
Obstruction of the highway on the basis of too many pickets, even if they are moving, or a single picket trying to compel a driver to stop and listen.
Obstruction of the police - for example, refusing to comply with lawful directions when the police are acting to prevent a breach of the peace.
Using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour (Section 4, POA).
Disorderly conduct likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress (Section 5, POA).
Aggravated trespass (Section 68, Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994)"
Hmmm, just like any old protest then............
Scabs ooze puss
police didn't threaten arrest
03.09.2005 09:52
screw the scabs