UK Indymedia | U.K. Anti-Bush Demonstration Banned from Whitehall

U.K. Anti-Bush Demonstration Banned from Whitehall

Stop the War | 12.06.2008 03:32 | Anti-militarism | London

Be sure to come out and join in the festivities.

Bring cameras, and anything that makes noise.

Why not block the War Criminal altogether?

Why not demand that he be arrested?

U.K. Anti-Bush demonstration banned from Whitehall

2008-06-11 | The Stop the War Coalition has been informed by the Metropolitan Police that a proposed march, co-organised with CND and the British Muslim Initiative, to protest George Bush's visit will not be allowed. The Coalition has organised scores of marches on this route, including during Bush's last visit in 2003. It seems that when George W Bush visits this country traditional rights of assembly are to be removed from the people. This would be unacceptable for the visit of any foreign leader, but for George Bush, a man many regard as a war criminal, it is particularly deplorable.

We are calling on those who care for our democratic rights to come to Parliament Square at 5.0 pm on Sunday 15 June. Some of those who signed statements accusing Bush of war crimes will be leading this protest.
"George Bush has been dictating British foreign policy for many years. Now it appears his security services are determining our rights of protest. This is a disgrace and we will challenge the ban." Lindsey German, Convenor Stop the War Coalition

"The ban on the Stop The War Coalition march in protest at the visit of President Bush to this country is a totalitarian act. In what is supposed to be a free country the Coalition has every right to express its views peacefully and openly. This ban is outrageous and makes the term 'democracy' laughable".
HAROLD PINTER

David Wilson
Press Office
Stop the War Coalition
27 Britannia Street
London WC1X 9JP
T: +44(0)20 7278 6694
M: +44(0)7951 579 064

http://www.stopwar.org.uk

Stop the War

Additions

Is it a ban really?

12.06.2008 11:03

I would like someone to clarify for me if what this mean if that the STWC has stopped complying with POA 1986 at last. This is really what happened during another supposed ban of a STWC march last October:

'Last October, the organizers of the Stop The War Coalition march to Parliament had notified the police in advance and sat down with them in order to negotiate the conditions of that protest (stewards, route, time, etc.), thus complying with Sections 11 and 12 of POA 1986. However, the Police walked out from negotiations with the Stop the War Coalition, announcing that they were not ‘facilitating’ their march – an euphemism meaning that they would use any means, including force, to stop that march happening. Many people were under the impression that, in doing so, the police had used powers granted them under SOCPA. In fact, when the police tried to justify the ban they mentioned a Sessional Order, under the 1839 Metropolitan Police Act [18], that was in reality an order from Parliament to the Police ‘to enable free passage by Peers and Members on days on which Parliament is sitting’. However, it was not actually possible for the police to legally use this Sessional Order to criminalise the organizers of the march, especially because non-compliance by protesters could not have constituted any offence. That Sessional Order is just an instruction of Parliament to the police and not legislation. However, Section 13 of POA 1986 gives the police the power to prohibit marches. This section justifies the prohibition of a procession in a particular area for no longer than three months when the police ‘reasonably believes’ that the procession could result in serious public disorder. At the end, the police decided not to exercise this power and finally allowed the march to happen.

These facts were largely mis-represented not only by the organizers of the 8th of October march but also the mainstream press. For example, in an article published in the Observer on October 7, 2007, Henry Porter forgets to mention that the STWC had been complying with POA 1986 all along and that power to ban that march was not really contained in SOCPA or the Sessional Order, but in POA 1986:

"That is where it becomes a problem. Instead of using the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, the law preventing demonstration within a kilometre of Parliament Square without police permission, the authorities have disinterred a Sessional Order of the House of Commons of the Metropolitan Police Act of 1839, passed at the time of the Chartists.

With archaic relish, they have banned the march because it may impede the progress of any MP or peer who wants to attend Parliament (it is surprising there is no mention of Mr Speaker's coach and four). The organisers have guaranteed that access, but the ban stays in place, which is odd given that the Prime Minister is on record as saying he wants to repeal the section of SOCPA that requires police permission."' [1]

SOCPA 2005 only covers static demonstrations (assemblies and lone protesters) around Parliament and other 'designated sites'. So really, the STWC does not need to ask for 'authorisation' to the Police when what they are doing is giving notification in advance to the Police (section 11, POA 1986) and allowing for the police to put conditions on their march (section 12, POA 1986). The case is, because under SOCPA 2005 the police cannot really ban a demonstration, giving prior notification under POA 1986 or asking for 'authorisation' under SOCPA 2005 are exactly the same things.

The question here is: Has the STWC notified in advance and negotiated with the Police the conditions of that protest? In that case, if the Police has told them they cannot have their march, they well deserved it (if they had not asked for permission in the first place the police wouldn't have had the chance to say 'no') If what happened was that the STWC has stopped complying with POA 1986, in that case, WELL DONE TO THEM AND I'LL BE COMING TO THEIR MARCH!.

Then, maybe they have realised that accepting the police's motto: 'you tell us when you're protesting and we'll tell you how' is a waste of time apart from a STRAIGHTFORWARD COLLABORATION WITH THE CRIMINALISATION OF PROPER PROTEST.

Does anyone know what this apparent 'ban' really means?

[1] Campaign for Free Assembly's 'Freedom to Protest: What Does the Proposed Repeal of Sections 132-38 of SOCPA Really Mean?'. See full article at:

http://freedomofassembly.blogspot.com/

protester

Comments

Hide the following 7 comments

Protest by right!

12.06.2008 04:54

Protest by Right, not by police permission! March regardless of permission.

Red, Green, and Black

It was in effect a ban (overturned at the last minute)

12.06.2008 11:59

I am not an expert - just a fellow protester. As far as I can remember the use of a law from the 1800s was reasonably well publicised at the time, even in the "liberal" MSM (Guardian and maybe Indie). I have not come across anything to make me think that the StWC deliberately misrepresented what legal mechanism was causing the problem (and I don't know why they would).

At the demo itself, speakers revealed that the police had agreed to the march at the eleventh hour, but many of the (male) officers turned out to be obstructive and aggressive. One or two of them were looking for a fight, and I dare say were largely disappointed that they didn't get one.

Jon

It wasn't in effect a ban

12.06.2008 15:03

Because there was no ban, and no penalty for not complying, it was a breakdown in negotiations:

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/10/382737.html#c182291

> As far as I can remember the use of a law from the 1800s was reasonably
> well publicised at the time, even in the "liberal" MSM (Guardian and
> maybe Indie).

The Guardian has no clue about the law, their article on this says that "Protesters need permission to march near parliament" which is untrue, SOCPA does not apply to marches.

Why the obsession with the law being from the 1800s? This sounds like the same 'logic' as Bush's claim the Geneva Conventions don't apply because they're from the 1940s.

On Sessional Orders - the "law from the 1800s":

Met Police view: "Sessional Orders, which are orders passed by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, place a duty on the Commissioner to ensure that access to Parliament is kept free of obstruction. However, these orders do not create any additional police powers [...] The powers available under this Act are very limited, are increasingly being challenged by protestors and do not provide any statutory framework to place conditions on processions and assemblies."

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/05/398556.html

Parliament's view: "Thus, although passing a Sessional Order may, in the words of the Clerk, "make the House feel better", it does not confer any extra legal powers on the police, and the Clerk and Serjeant told us that the lack of powers to enforce the [Metropolitan Police Act 1839] mean that "the police's approach to the control of the streets in the immediate vicinity of the Palace of Westminster cannot in practice be different from its approach elsewhere". They conclude that passing the Sessional Order means "that successive generations of Members are encouraged in the mistaken belief that its effect is to confer special and additional legal authority on the police in relation to the precincts of Parliament."

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmproced/855/855.pdf

> I have not come across anything to make me think that the StWC
> deliberately misrepresented what legal mechanism was causing
> the problem (and I don't know why they would).

Have you come across anything from the STWC which says what dire punishment would have been given to anyone that defied the 'ban' if the police hadn't re-entered negotiations? Wonder why.

davidbanner

stop the war are rubbish etc.

12.06.2008 23:35

So when stop the war has a legal demo everyone moans, calls for more direct action yet they do nothing.
when they say they will defy a police ban, the police ban isn't real. I don't understand why the anarchist "majority" of the anti war movement does not just do whatever they want, the amount of times i have heard we were gonna do direct action, defy the police, then the nasty stop the war stewards stopped us. The only meanful direct action i have seen recently is by Eamonn McCann of the Raytheon 9, (who is a member of the most evil party in the world no not the republicans in America but the SWP ahhhhh).

marxist?

Re: stop the war are rubbish etc.

13.06.2008 10:46

> So when stop the war has a legal demo everyone moans, calls for
> more direct action yet they do nothing.

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/actions/2008/edo/

> when they say they will defy a police ban, the police ban isn't real.

If it's real, explain how.

In both cases Stop the War is doing its best to maintain a good relationship with the police.

"The police have always said that we've behaved in a very, very good fashion and we've always co-operated with the police."
- Lindsey German on Radio 5 on the 8th October 2007, the last time the STWC 'defied' a 'ban'.

> I don't understand why the anarchist "majority" of the anti war
> movement does not just do whatever they want

We do. And then we also manage to point out the bullshit of careerists like Lindsey German, Tony Benn and George Galloway.

> the amount of times i have heard we were gonna do direct
> action, defy the police, then the nasty stop the war
> stewards stopped us.

No, the nasty stop the war stewards stop their own supporters.

> The only meanful direct action i have seen recently is by
> Eamonn McCann of the Raytheon 9

Funny that the STWC has never mentioned them, or the trial in a press release, isn't it.

davidbanner

Re: stop the war are rubbish etc.

14.06.2008 22:42

>> The only meanful direct action i have seen recently is by
>> Eamonn McCann of the Raytheon 9

>Funny that the STWC has never mentioned them, or the trial in a press release, isn't it.

On the 'stop' the war website...
A statement by the 9 Raytheon protestors from Derry.

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=651&Itemid=27

Brian B
Homepage: http://www.brianb.uklinux.net/antiwar-discuss/

Re: stop the war are rubbish etc.

20.06.2008 20:06

That's not a press release, it will only be seen by those who visit the website.

If they had any backbone they'd have sent out a press release praising the Raytheon 9 and pledging more of the same.

davidbanner

Kollektives

London Topics

Major Coverage

Other IMCs

U.K. Anti-Bush Demonstration Banned from Whitehall

Additions

Is it a ban really?

Comments

Protest by right!

It was in effect a ban (overturned at the last minute)

It wasn't in effect a ban

stop the war are rubbish etc.

Re: stop the war are rubbish etc.

Re: stop the war are rubbish etc.

Re: stop the war are rubbish etc.

Kollektives

London Topics

London IMC

Major Coverage

London links

London Links

UK IMCs

Other IMCs