at around 1.30 this afternoon, a community support officer started hassling aqil shaerer who is a pro-palestinian protestor associated with brian haw and often around parliament square. it is unclear what grounds they had for this. brian became involved and explained to them that aqil was part of his authorised demonstration. two more cso officers became involved, but then they all left.
a short while later a police van arrived and they immediately homed in on brian, claiming that he was harassing them. before anyone realised what was happening, one of the youngest of the cops kicked brian's legs from under him, wrestled him to the ground and handcuffed him behind his back.
in years of dealings with the police, brian has never ever been violent towards them, although he has suffered at their hands on many occasions, including a very violent and pre-meditated attack by a TSG officer, U1019, on the 12th january this year.
rear handcuffing is normally reserved for violent offenders, or is sometimes used where police have no knowledge of the person arrested and cannot guarantee their safety. of course, neither situation relates to brian haw.
brian was manhandled into the police van, and the police waved jauntily at protestors as they drove him away to belgravia police station.
at first the custody officers told supporters brian was being held for 'disorderly conduct' but when his solicitor, maggie peters from bindmans, became involved, they said he was being held for a section 5 public order offence. they allege that he had shouted at a passing vehicle "get a job you fat bastard". this seems quite unlikely, and the only witness the police appear to be relying on is one of their own policemen. they admit the passer-by has not made any complaint.
section 5 is not an imprisonable offence and can in fact be dealt with by a fixed penalty notice. despite this, police have now held brian for more than four hours.
there seems to be a sinister pattern emerging. recently, the parliament square protestors have launched legal challenges against the police and courts, and these have taken the form of lodging judicial reviews at the high court, and adding "addendums" as new events occur. each time something is lodged, within a matter of days, the police target one of the protestors at the square, violently arrest them and then hold them for a disproportionate time. it just this friday that brian haw and barbara tucker lodged a new addendum to their judicial review at the high court, detailing recent legal travesties for judicial consideration. within two days this new outrage has been perpertrated.
there is much talk of the repeal of socpa, but in the meantime, the war against the parliament square peace camp is continuing. it is clear the authorities will stop at nothing to harass and intimidate the peaceful protest which was the original reason for the socpa law. two and a half years after the introduction of socpa the protestors are still there, and i think this is the real reason socpa may be withdrawn. it has failed in its primary purpose, and the authorities are looking for any other ways to be rid of the 'brian problem'.
a short while later a police van arrived and they immediately homed in on brian, claiming that he was harassing them. before anyone realised what was happening, one of the youngest of the cops kicked brian's legs from under him, wrestled him to the ground and handcuffed him behind his back.
in years of dealings with the police, brian has never ever been violent towards them, although he has suffered at their hands on many occasions, including a very violent and pre-meditated attack by a TSG officer, U1019, on the 12th january this year.
rear handcuffing is normally reserved for violent offenders, or is sometimes used where police have no knowledge of the person arrested and cannot guarantee their safety. of course, neither situation relates to brian haw.
brian was manhandled into the police van, and the police waved jauntily at protestors as they drove him away to belgravia police station.
at first the custody officers told supporters brian was being held for 'disorderly conduct' but when his solicitor, maggie peters from bindmans, became involved, they said he was being held for a section 5 public order offence. they allege that he had shouted at a passing vehicle "get a job you fat bastard". this seems quite unlikely, and the only witness the police appear to be relying on is one of their own policemen. they admit the passer-by has not made any complaint.
section 5 is not an imprisonable offence and can in fact be dealt with by a fixed penalty notice. despite this, police have now held brian for more than four hours.
there seems to be a sinister pattern emerging. recently, the parliament square protestors have launched legal challenges against the police and courts, and these have taken the form of lodging judicial reviews at the high court, and adding "addendums" as new events occur. each time something is lodged, within a matter of days, the police target one of the protestors at the square, violently arrest them and then hold them for a disproportionate time. it just this friday that brian haw and barbara tucker lodged a new addendum to their judicial review at the high court, detailing recent legal travesties for judicial consideration. within two days this new outrage has been perpertrated.
there is much talk of the repeal of socpa, but in the meantime, the war against the parliament square peace camp is continuing. it is clear the authorities will stop at nothing to harass and intimidate the peaceful protest which was the original reason for the socpa law. two and a half years after the introduction of socpa the protestors are still there, and i think this is the real reason socpa may be withdrawn. it has failed in its primary purpose, and the authorities are looking for any other ways to be rid of the 'brian problem'.
e-mail:
Homepage:
Comments
Hide the following 9 comments
simply....
05.05.2008 18:17
...appalling. i can't think of anything more to say.
k
"A person is guilty of an offence...
05.05.2008 19:41
Funny, sounds like every cop I've ever met.
No doubt there is an exemption for the purposes of "preventing or detecting crime."
MonkeyBot 5000
CSOs?
06.05.2008 05:48
Itsme
At least this is out ...
06.05.2008 06:51
In last years SPEAK trial police recorded themselves describing how they were to persecute Mel Broughton and calling women "bitches". They were also found to have lied in court.
Good look to Brian HAw, but keep an eye and support Animal Rights activist as the police always use new tactics against animal rights first.
Thingy
May Day backlash!
06.05.2008 08:12
However this did not appear to occur at this event.
Actually from the reports it appears there was one arrest. An example of the pre-emptive police tactics apparent from drinking control areas, dispersal zones, SOCPA 132 legislation etc. We can't have a threat to public order can we - from the met police who have done NOTHING to stop the war criminals in power - T Blair, Brown & the rest of the mob.
From
"...There actually was an arrest. Somebody was taken in under the pretense of drinking in a no-alcohol zone whilst returning to the May Fayre."
However in the main, it appear the police have happily allowed this event to take place.
Comment from
"Most of the coppers were good humoured and it was most amusing to see them having to stiffle their urge to dance, tap heir feet to the music and grin manicly.... ( I caught many smiling)."
It has been Brian Haw who has received the 'traditional' mayday backlash. And Why? Because the party at Mayfair was not a threat to the criminal warmongers in power. Only Brian Haw, protesting 'war' crimes, and someone protesting about crimes in Palestine were a threat. I am not saying that the people should not celebrate mayday, it's just to point out that there are reasons that the police act in some cases and not others. It is no accident. The police will have contacted their central command and been told whether to intervene or not (as in this case).
The mainstream media usual complicity will mean this arrest will go unreported. The same complicity that has most probably allowed/engineered the 'tory revival' reported elsewhere on this website, in which Boris Johnson has risen and Ken Livingstone fallen.
Brian B
Homepage:
http://www.brianb.uklinux.net/antiwar-discuss/
Spin a crime
06.05.2008 09:21
loppy
Section 5 POA1986.
06.05.2008 12:11
'Disorderly conduct' in itself is not a section 5 offence, it is the conduit through which the offence may be committed. The offence itself is likely to 'cause harassment, alarm or distress' - 'thereby'.
For example (from a common misconception abused by the police) saying to someone "f**k off, you w*nker" is not an offence, even though it can be described by 'insulting words'. to be an offence under section 5, a reasonable person must, in the context of the circumstances, be caused (or likely to be caused) harassment, alarm or distress.
ie,
Scenario 1: If you were to say "f**k off, you w*nker" to someone in a dismissive way, especially while turning away, then in these circumstances a reasonable person could not be caused 'harassment, alarm or distress thereby'.
Scenario 2: However if you were to say "f**k off, you w*nker" to someone, loudly, as you were running up toward them giving the appearance that you were about to attack them - that WOULD be 'likely to cause ... alarm or distress' to a reasonable person.
Harassment on the other hand would require a warning about the phrase or behaviour used prior to it amounting to harassment (ie two or more times - although just twice would have to be held with some suspicion - would you really consider someone to be harassing you after the very first comment/action?) - i would, personally, suggest that at least two occasions are required before the warning, then the third to engage the law. Obviously, if we were doing law properly, the Metropolitan police would spend most of their time in prison cells.
That aside for a moment, whether there is a common law offence of 'disorderly behaviour' is a more intriguing question for me, along with whether such an offence (common law offence) would still exist on the statute books. Perhaps you would be so kind as to let me know this one?
SteveJ
PS Loppy, if you were stopped by a PCSO, make damn sure you get the 'stop notice' with his/her identification on it. S45 stop and search powers are for use by normal uniformed officers, NOT plastic plod (who are the equivalent of civilian staff, that was the whole point of them).
SteveJ
Shame on the Met
06.05.2008 16:06
PW
Re: Section 5 POA1986
07.05.2008 12:33
> which the offence may be committed. The offence itself is likely to 'cause
> harassment, alarm or distress' - 'thereby'.
I'm not sure what your point is, it is the likelihood of that being caused which marks the conduct as criminally 'disorderly' (or 'offensive' as the pre-SOCPA version included) - it is an offence against the public order (i.e. the state) not the person.
> Scenario 2: However if you were to say "f**k off, you w*nker" to someone,
> loudly, as you were running up toward them giving the appearance that
> you were about to attack them - that WOULD be 'likely to cause ...
> alarm or distress' to a reasonable person.
On the current law I would see that as a potential section 4A offence.
> Harassment on the other hand would require a warning about the phrase
> or behaviour used prior to it amounting to harassment (ie two or more
> times - although just twice would have to be held with some suspicion
> - would you really consider someone to be harassing you after the very
> first comment/action?)
You seem to be confusing the crime of harassment (e.g. s2 PHA1997) with the related behaviour which s5 is intended to deal with, and does not require any repetition.
> That aside for a moment, whether there is a common law offence of
> 'disorderly behaviour' is a more intriguing question for me, along with
> whether such an offence (common law offence) would still exist on
> the statute books. Perhaps you would be so kind as to let me
> know this one?
Not as I recall, it is instead to supplement power to deal with a breach of the peace, from which the concept derives (that is "causing fear and alarm to the lieges"), as was more obvious in the Public Order Act 1936 s5 which it replaced, and is still the case in Scotland where it is entirely a matter of (all too) common law.
See:
Fifth Report of the Home Affairs Committee, The Law Relating to Public Order HC756-I
Green Paper: Review of the Public Order Act 1936 and related legislation (1980), Cmnd. 7891
The Law Commission, Working Paper No. 82, Offences Against Public Order
The Law Commission: Criminal Law: Offences Relating to Public Order (Law Com. No. 123)
White Paper: Review of Public Order Law, 1985 Cmnd. 9510
streetlawyer