NO2ID

Article => Nine arrested after protest at minister’s identity cards meeting


Tut, tut!


Was there such an offer, or is there a slight misuse of words going on here?

I seem to remember something about offering a private meeting, not a public one....

Anyway, we can look forward to Geraint's side of the story when he's finished giving his DNA and fingerprints to the State. I'm sure there's plenty to be learned about the Govt's tactics from this episode!

Nine of us have been charged for breach of the peace. Eight for causing "alarm and distress" for walking into the hotel wearing white suits and masks (despite two of them actually wearing unmasked East German border guard uniforms), and me for "alarm and disturbance" for infiltrating the meeting, putting my hand up to speak, taking the microphone when offered, speaking, and refusing to leave immediately while speaking after the minister requested that I do so.

Of the eight, one is a young lady who walked in after everyone else with a young child. The idea that she might have alarmed anyone is ridiculous. Another of the protesters was 17, on his first protest, doing only what I had told him - I'm very annoyed that he has been charged and had to spend a day in the cells at St Leonards.

There was a bit of heavy handed policing (they were responding to a 999 call and didn't know what they were facing) but it calmed down instantly the moment one of them realised they were being filmed by professionals and warned his colleagues. All protesters were entirely peaceful at all times.

I must emphasise that once the police realised that there actually wasn't any danger, they were all entirely courteous and professional throughout for the rest of the day. We still have to decide whether to file a complaint against the officer who ripped a mask off the face of a protester. He seemed a decent and friendly chap when I spoke to him later.

The police have told us that after speaking to groups of people inside, no one has any complaints about our conduct inside, there is no suggestion that we were anything other than peaceful. It is the "alarm" that has led to the charges "masked people in today's climate ...". Given that we had negotiated with the hotel manager to film an interview with STV inside (possibly after the 999 call had been made - that is still to be established), and were on our way out when the police arrived, I am surprised at the charges.

However, STV caught almost everything (except my contribution to the consultation) on camera. They followed the costumed protesters in, filmed them trying to negotiate entry, caught me being thrown out, an interview with me, our attempted departure, followed by the arrival of the police. Apparently we have made the main news programme, but couldn't see it ourselves.

We have all been bailed to appear before Edinburgh Sheriff's court on 24 July. I fully intend to use the occasion to highlight again how the Home Office are refusing to engage in debate with the public.

For clarification, I was not trying to engage in constructive debate inside the consultation. It would have taken hours to counter the nonsense that Meg Hillier was speaking and would have served little purpose. Instead, I concentrated on the fact that we and the general public had been excluded from the process.

There were a couple of amusing aspects. When I approached the registration desk just after the event started, I was able to see all the remaining badges and list of names - it was easy to select one. I entered the ID consultation with a newly-acquired false identity.

On entering the room, in which a video was playing, I slowly walked around to find the assigned seat for that person. Officials to whom I had been speaking outside appeared not to recognise me. No one challenged my entry as I took a seat. Meanwhile, officials who tackled the costumed protesters that tried to follow five minutes later asked the group if Dr Bevan was among them. So, they were looking out for me, but couldn't even spot me walking in late after I had been talking to them earlier. And these people think they are capable of controlling people's identities. Astonishing.

Blimey. And well done for staying cool. I don't suppose Ministers are ever charged with wasting police time?

My money's on Margaret's PA making the call !

Well done Geraint for keeping your cool - can I suggest that No2ID appeals through its web-site, or this forum, for a campaign fund to pay any fines that may result ?

The Junior Minister for Identity happens to be the MP for Hackney South and Shoreditch - Hackney No2ID will be looking to arrange a debate where we can give her a chance to right the error of our ways - we may be alarmed by her proposals, or distressed by the lack of safeguards, but we promise not to bring charges. Heck, she can even wear a mask !

Meg Hiller:



It's more likely that Meg Hillier will be living in the past given that the Tories are certain to win the next election and scrap ID Cards.

Let's get to the bottom of this. Is the above statement a lie?

The first sentence is true. I disagree with the second sentence but you can form your own opinion.

We were offered a private meeting for 30 minutes that would have very conveniently (for the Home Office) coincided with the protest that I had already announced to journalists, photographers, news organisations and the Press Association.

On 14 June, just as the Home Office started sending out invitations to the event, I e-mailed the Minister:


On Monday 23 June, Meg's office replied


I wrote back immediately suggesting two venues in the centre of Edinburgh which would be suitable for a small meeting. No reply until Friday 27 June (the last week day before the event), by which time I had already announced to the press that we would be protesting between 10:00 and 11:00. Friday's reply


I explained that I had media work to do at that time, declined the kind offer and asked if we could arrange a public meeting at some point in the future. No reply yet.

Earlier in the week, as the Minister's office had ignored my request for places at the event in the first reply (which I had copied to idroadshow@gsi.ips.gov.uk), I e-mailed the roadshow again solely to ask for a couple of places at the event. On Thursday, before I had been told that any meeting would be at 9:45, a Home Office official who was handling invitations to the event phoned me to say that he had consulted with the Minister's office and, because they were making separate arrangements for a private meeting and because the event was only for "stakeholders", they would not offer us any places at the roadshow itself.

Two questions:
1) are STV willing to provide copies of said tape?
2) were they not filming the lecture/q-n-a at all, or were you just unlucky?

And 'offered to meet' is such a complete cop-out, more so in the light of the nature of that offer.

Aren't members of the public "stakeholders"?

I very much hope so. I have sent a request.


Luck? What's that? The STV camera was at all times in the optimum position. While I was listening to Meg inside, they were filming the rest of the protest outside and the attempted entrance by the Stasi and white-suits. WhileI was speaking to the audience inside, the rest of the protest was being filmed trying to negotiate with officials to gain access to the room. And the STV camera was perfectly placed at the right time, pointing at the door that I was forcibly ejected from - and in a good position for an interview with me.

That bit may be a lie, depending on what you mean by "a majority", and exactly what question you ask them.

Note, too the spin involved in saying 'the majority of UK citizens'. It implies that if you don't you are probably a filthy foreigner.

Good work guys, and I second the idea of a fund if it's required.

best compliment I have recieved in a while, Young - love it if factually inaccurate. and I think the wee lad dealt with being locked up so well poor thing. as did us girls who appreciated the peace and quiet lol I think Meg offering to meet a couple of us has no relevance to the fact that this was not a public consultation. She has not ever agreed to attend one.

living in the past....... OK I'm thinking denial!

post above was me Charlie. whoops!

Well done !!!!

Sounds like you all did the right thing - especially concentrating on highlighting the propaganda of th e"consultancy"

You got great coverage - thousands of people* are very appreciative I'm sure!!!




*realistically it should read millions of people - by tht end of the campaign

Anonymous wrote:
Quote:
"[...] the majority of UK citizens are supportive of identity cards, which start being issued to foreign nationals later this year."


Let's get to the bottom of this. Is the above statement a lie?


That bit may be a lie, depending on what you mean by "a majority", and exactly what question you ask them.

Answer -
What is 60% of 2043? 2052? 2057?

What % of the UK population is 6152?
That is how many people were asked what they thought of ID Cards.

Go to the following for the "research" conducted on how many UK Citizens are in favour...

http://www.ips.gov.uk/identity/download ... Wave-1.pdf

http://www.ips.gov.uk/identity/download ... Wave-2.pdf

http://www.ips.gov.uk/identity/download ... Wave-3.pdf

Great coverage! Anything I can do to help, let me know.

A bigger peaceful protest outside might be in order. You might get much more of the media turning up.

Can you get MPs involved somehow?

OK, my thoughts on what to do. They are trying the harassment business and 'causing alarm' etc. I would plead not guilty and then I would appeal to the Crown Court. My defence would be that it is not expected the average person would be frightened by fancy dress, since it was so obviously so. (I mean we weren't really the Stazi- were we?) I would then state the likely reason that the complainant was frightened is that I have evidential grounds to show that she has a phobia about meeting the public. I would then ask the court to use expert witness evidence in the form of a psychiatric assessment of Meg Hillier to see if such a phobia was the likely cause of her distress and as a legitimate part of my defence case.

Does NO2ID have access to legal counsel as regards this incident? Might we be able to call upon the services of a good Barister?

Scotland has a different legal system to England and Wales. As a group, we are meeting with a lawyer next Monday to ensure that we all have a basic understanding of what is to come and have all received some general legal advice. We will then have to get separate lawyers individually to represent us, unless anyone decides to represent themselves (the threshold for earnings to qualify for legal aid is very low, apparently).

If anyone would like to contribute to legal costs, cheques made payable to "Glasgow NO2ID", along with an indication of the intended purpose, would be gratefully received at 3e Grovepark Gardens, Glasgow G20 7JB. Any surplus after the cases have all concluded would be sent to London to be added to the legal defence fund (or to start an activists defence fund, whatever).

I bet the police drop charges.

Frankly, if that happens, we chould approach the media and demand our day in court.

frankly that would all be up to us as individuals to decide.

That's what I'm thinking. Their case is very shaky and NO2ID are protected by freedom of speech laws such as the Human Rights Act. So they will probably try and get the people to accept a caution. This is rather dodgy since it is effectively admitting you are guilty and for doing that you don't get fined etc. (But you get your DNA taken etc!)

I know what I would do but it depends on what the police decide as well. In my opinion they were wrong to arrest people without a proper reason, however proving wrongful arrest is a very tricky thing to do. It's civil law and the police only have to 'think' they were right for the case to fail. That's where a good lawyer comes into good effect and my guess is that if you hit the police with someone far better than their own lawyers they will cave in and offer an out of court settlement, which is quite normal when they don't have a strong case and are faced with a strong legal team. And one bonus might just be arresting that four year old, that seems quite out of keeping with what should have happened.

We have a right to protest and the only thing they might bring up is trespass, since it was private property. However that is not the business of the police since it is a civil matter. They can only rely on things like it looked to them like there was trouble, potential danger, violence, threatening behaviour and that sort of thing. Wearing fancy dress is not one of them; they are treading on dodgy ground.