NO2ID

A cheque for £50 is in the post.

Good luck!

God dont do that! Geraint will spend it all on buckfast and let us stew in cells lol! no, much appreciated xx

It'll be known as the NO2ID nine! Any good lawyers out there?

Well done for making a stand, the police think they can get away with using all sorts of laws (anti-terror, harrasement) to surpess peacefull protest these days but I shouldn't think the charges will stand.


PS Those East German uniforms looked great, the site of them walking in on a new-labour pr-feats was heartning

Well done Glasgow No2ID from me, too. Cheque also in post.

Fwiw, I would make a complaint against the mask-ripping officer. You are all polite friendly people as well, yet were arrested without good reason.

If charges are dropped, again making a complaint would (a) maybe make them think twice about their tactics, and (b) keep the NIR issue before the public for longer.

Well the police investigate themselves so nothing would actually come from the complaint, still ripping off the mask was arguably and assault so you should go through the motions. Wearing a mask is not a crime, well unless they have a sec 60AA in place and you have been asked to remove it by the police.

Even if it gives you some extra publicity and helps ensure the police think twice about doing it again in the future.

is this our walter wolfgang moment? a 17yr old probably isn't the same as an 81yr old but a mother with child might be?

i was shocked when i read the email regarding these arrests and i think there's a good deal of media capital to be made from this, especially in light of the assault (and that's what ripping someone's mask off is - what would have happened if a no2id protestor had knocked off a copper's helmet?). if someone could prepare a press release we could all send around, with a link to the tv coverage, pref. with sound, i would have thought there would be a lot of press interest.

Although I'm full of admiration for what Scottish NO2ID have been doing, I don't think we'll necessarily get much establishment support for this. Editors and politicians will have been bitten before by plausible tales of injustice from other campaigners, which eventually turned out to be one-sided self-serving propaganda to cover up nasty and illegal "direct actions" (and there have been plenty of campaigns before where activists brought their children along, so that won't necessarily help).

Although we don't stoop to violence and criminal damage, and although our story is fundamentally sound, the editors and politicians will be twice shy about taking our side. We might have more luck after charges are dropped or the case is dismissed in court.

I think your a bit quick to dismiss other activists claims of injustice as self-serving propaganda. More likely other activists will now be going look NO2ID we told you the police were a bunch of C**Ts. We'd be best showing solidarity to activists of other campaigns that have been arrested for legitimate protest.

James - Sorry, I wasn't clear. I'm not saying that all other activists are like that, nor that the police are always well behaved, nor that injustice never happens. I'm just saying that sometimes other activists are like that, and sometimes tales of injustice fail to withstand scrutiny, and that "sometimes" is enough to make people wary of lending their support.

Sorry for being spiky, I'm just getting it in the ear from some activists who claim NO2ID aren't vocal in supporting them when they get nicked so why should they care. It's an annoying form of anti-solidarity.

I think your right that anybody involved in political action is going to try and put their own political spin on what happens in these situations. The media is normally happy to report straight from the police account (unless it’s a country side alliance protest and it’s Middle England getting baton charged). The police account often bears little or no resemblance to what actually happened. I mean thier way they estimate numbers seems to be to divide the total actually there. It's also fairly common for police to get away with physical assualt, harrasment etc where as the slightest step out of line and activsts are hauled up again the police friendly magistrate who then gets to determine the offical record of what happened, which the papers then have to report.

I think media Bias has a lot more to do with who owns the papers rather than activists spinning stories and destroying trust.

Hi I am sort of banking on NO2ID supporters standing up with us after our arrests during a peaceful protest. Not just for our sakes but for every group which exercise their right to protest in a peaceful and entirely legal manner.

I'm proud to have been involved with NO2ID over the years and I continue to be so!

Oh dear, I shouldn't have sounded a negative note when everybody is feeling so sensitive! I was responding to a particular point made above by avtar singh that we might enjoy similar publicity to Walter Wolfgang, and just wanted to say that (unfortunately) I thought it unlikely.

charliecat - don't worry - everybody is right behind you!

With our stakes!



*but ducks/runs just in case*

No, they would not think twice about it if you made a complaint. Complaints are there so that you get the impression your grievance has been heard when it is just routine blar to them. Like any faceless organisation they ALL have complaints systems. You know why of course, it puts people off the idea of suing them.

I think people here should keep in mind that this will be dealt with under Scots Law, which is very different to English law. I'm not sure whether the (old) Public Order Act 1936 applies in Scotland, but I suspect it does and, if so, it does give the police very specific powers and duties when it comes to "public meetings", even those held in private premises.

Most grass-roots police tend to have little experience of political activism and react as though the behaviour was actually committed as part of a scenario they are more familiar with, namely a street when the pubs turn out. The only experience the average cop has of protest is watching people chucking bricks at their colleagues in Trafalgar Square. Usually, once you show that you aren't some kind of authority-hating anarchist, the police will take a more balanced, or even sympathetic line.

If a complaint is laid that protestors caused "harassment, alarm or distress" at such an event, they are duty bound to pass the case on to the CPS (in England and Wales) or the Procurator Fiscal (Scotland), who makes the final decision as to whether a case goes before the magistrates. These lawyers aren't normally dazzled or frightened off by the Defence producing some pricey QC. The prosecuting authorities more often drop cases like this due to it "not being in the public interest to proceed", which tends to mean that it's going to cost a lot of money to pursue it; there is a good chance they won't secure a conviction and if they do, the penalty will be derisory.

Sincere good luck, Geraint! You fight a worthy cause.

Stu

Try for a counter assault charge for being ejected from the room by someone who is not a police person or hotel security.

As Geraint was " forcibly removed from the meeting, can he claim assault?

As someone who has been in the position of running consultation meetings, if someone needs to be removed I must call the police as if I "put a hand" on them I can be charged with assault. therefore, if the police did not remove Geraint from the room - who did?

Worth asking a solicitor about that one.

Just to add to all this. It is quite likely that the cases will be dropped. I have dealt with the Lothian and Borders police, and I have faced both good police officers and nasty pieces of work. I've seen police arrest a 50-year old for holding 'an offensive sign' ( http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh/Scie ... 4191420.jp ). Charges were dropped a week later. They have also arrested five (peaceful) clowns on a biofuels protest ( http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/04/396834.html ). According to the clowns, the officer who arrested them actually said that they were being made scape goats for completely irrelevant crimes happening in the area. Crazy? You probably don't believe it, and probably doubt how peaceful and law abiding these protesters were. Funny how we don't hold similar prejudices when it comes to the police.

There seems to be an assumption among the Lothian and Borders Police (A division) that arresting protesters for no lawful reason is acceptable. As soon as they drop the charges (which I am almost certain they will), perhaps it will be a good idea to discuss what to do? I don't know much about the law, but is it a 'done thing' to sue the police for misuse of police powers?

I can see that we definitely want our day in court. I don't think we're going to get it, because the 'NO2ID nine' blatantly did nothing wrong.

Stu will probably shout me down for saying this but isn't it wonderful how within our criminal justic system, very few police officers are ever really called to justify "why" they arrested a suspect. Istead, it seems that police officers are, for the most part, given the benefit of the doubt.

Harlequin

No, I certainly won't shout you down. I can't speak for Scotland, but in England and Wales the police certainly do have to justify every arrest. Initially, the custody officer has to enquire into the grounds for the arrest and satisfy himself that it is both lawful and necessary to detain the person further. If the person remains in custody, a "review officer" of at least inspector rank must further enquire into the detention. The arresting officer knows he may have to justify an arrest before a criminal court in the first instance, a civil court if a defendant claims unlawful arrest (and the officer may be personally liable for a false arrest) and possibly to the Police Complaints Commission if a formal complaint has been made.

I actually agree that sometimes police officers resort to arrest unnecessarily and, aside from the violation of the rights of the suspect, they make themselves vulnerable to civil action in the courts and also disciplinary action in doing so. You have to remember that this government is obsessed with statistics and things that are 'measurable', and an arrest is something which is recorded against a police officer's name - something to add to the tally he must keep to justify his existence every month. Dealing with matters informally - using a bit of old-fashioned common sense - doesn't score. Where police officers aren't achieving "targets", including arrests, they are put on the "Unsatisfactory Performance Procedure" which can ultimately result in them losing their job. If they are still in their probationary period, their services can be dispensed with even without that procedure having to be invoked.

It's rotten and I don't defend it.

Stu

Thank you for your insight, Stu. I've always wondered what is going on behind the scenes.

It suggests it will be a good move to push for legal action of some sort. I imagine approaching the Independent Police Complaints Commission ( http://www.ipcc.gov.uk ) will be the first port of call if charges are dropped. If the NO2ID nine are experienced with the law, then maybe further.

According to their website, the police code of conduct require officers to "not abuse the extraordinary powers and authority police officers are granted". Which I believe is the issue here. It is noted that the police officers themselves are generally polite and professional, even if they arrest you for no good reason!

Please keep us posted on developments, since I am in the middle of an informal complaint of my own (for an unrelated, but comparable incident). I'd be interested to know how formal complaints are dealt with.

Another thing to investigate is who made that call to them. Did they say something that was untrue (all calls to 999 are recorded)? If they did then I'm wondering whether a civil case can be brought against the person who initiated it. They could have told the police porkies where the police can stand up and say 'under the circumstances I had reason to believe there would be violence' or something along those lines. The very least achieved via this route would be to find out who reported them and what they said. Remember anything in a public court can and most likely will be reported by the press.

I think the 9 protesters were brave and willing to be counted. I have nothing but admiration for them.

I think the big picture is that people ought not be arrested for peaceful protests if in so doing they suffer consequence, whether or not they are convicted. Simply being arrested has consequences, a permanent record of this could be accessed indefinitely in any future ENHANCED CRB check, and the subjects of such disclosure simply have to take it on trust that such an event would not prejudice them. That must be wrong in this case, and could happen without any further action being taken by prosecutors


Stu will probably seek the last and trivial word on this, however it seems that in this case, the police did not and will not IN ANY PRACTICAL SENSE OF THE WORD have to justify themselves in a manner that would have protected these nine....courageous people! And that is what really matters.

Here are the facts, rather than the post hoc procedural gloss.



Once a bad call has been made, or the police have abused their power, all of this is too late because the arrest is recorded against each person with all the attendant problems which that might cause them. Anyone that thinks this does not matter ought walk a mile in the shoes of one of the nine before saying so. But in any case, none of this stopped the detention from continuing, so one must assume that in the eyes of the police arrests of this type are justified! So none of this was of any real and practical help for the the 9. The words say the police have to justify themselves, clearly in this case they do not seem to need to.



None of this helped the 9 either.



None of this will help the 9 either. How often do civil actions in these types of cases succeed? How often in these circumstances do police face real and transparent consequences for unnecessary arrest in these circumstances? We know the answer to this, virtually never, and why? Because the real power is not in the hands of citizens, peaceful or not.

[/quote]

We won't be, if you mean by "showing solidarity", expressing any collective opinion as NO2ID about their causes, or the justification or circumstances of their specific demonstrations. Or endorsing any of their opinions about the world in general.

If ever we are subsumed into some sort of general protest movement, then our cause is lost, because the cross-partisan and mainstream support we have would dry up. (I for one would want to have nothing to do with such an organisation.)

It would be really helpful if discussion of the actual events last week, and speculation on the state of the law, could cease while the people concerned get proper, specific, legal advice.