thanks! X

It's starting to turn into some kind of sick plot from Columbo. Whatever next. Pizza boxes searched under the terrorism act?

That pepperoni looks suspect, sir.

And all the while the UK is named the largest target by Al Qaeda, Al Qaida - however you want to spell the non-existant terror organisation - and these peaceful people are harrassed to the ends of the Earth.

Go figure.

I don't think this is an isolated case.

I was recently arrested on extremely spurious grounds. Was then verbally and physically assaulted and now face going to court over something so stupid it's almost laughable.

But the thing that struck me - as I was being threatened with having my fingers broken and being given a good kicking (for refusing to rise to verbal provocation) was that this isn't really so far from the abuses we all hear about in countries that we consider to be dodgy in terms of human rights. How close were the police to really driving around the block, beating the crap out of me and then reporting that I had struggled with them in some way? It didn't seem so far to me. We've all heard the stories - and the one above sounds like one too.

Yet I felt more angry than scared - though I was admittedly relieved to get to the station in one piece. Angry because the police are so brainwashed. And angry because they're so ignorant. So ignorant that if you dare to open your mouth to say anything intelligible they feel threatened and have to start shouting. And if you don't open your mouth they feel angry because you're not acting intimitated. It's a catch-22 situation. With your arms clamped together behind your back, by two ignorant and aggressive 6ft pigs with small dicks trying to get hard-ons, the only place you're going is to the cells.

The killings of de Menzes, the shootings at Forest Gate, the massive increase in criminal legislation, the unlimited resources promised to the police, the enormous and rising prison population - this has all given the police the impression they are 100% able to get away with whatever it is they want to. And who can blame them?

mabye its the cheese. some people don't like cheese.

> he was stopped opposite downing street by two 'ministry of defence' constables. they
> wanted to search him under section 44 (the terrorism act). he asked them what
> reasonable suspicion they had, and they claimed they didn't need any.

Correctly. Terrorism Act (2000) Section 45(1)(b):
"The power conferred by an authorisation under section 44 may be exercised whether or not the constable has grounds for suspecting the presence of articles of which could be used in connection with terrorism."

> steve was taken to charing cross police station where they then conducted a search, but
> they didn't give him any stop and search form, and instead claimed that the search was
> now on 'police and criminal evidence' grounds. he was 'reported for possible summons'
> for willfully obstructing a search (terrorism).

Stop and Search forms are never issued for searches after arrest.

Section 47 (1)(c) of the TA(2000) is the alleged offence:

"A person commits an offence if he wilfully obstructs a constable in the exercise of the power conferred by an authorisation under section 44"

Search would have been under Section 54 of PACE:

"(1) The custody officer at a police station shall ascertain and record or cause to be recorded everything which a person has with him when he is -
(a) brought to the station after being arrested elsewhere or after being committed to custody by an order or sentence of a court
(2) In the case of an arrested person the record shall be made as part of his custody record."

This all pretty basic law (for protesters) so I'm surprised you're (rikki) not aware of it.

steve jago appeared at horseferry road today on the 'obstructing a police officer' charge, and the court did indeed agree that there was no earthly logic behind the police/crown prosecution service request to hold separate trials for steve and barbara. so a pre-trial review hearing was set for the 2nd november.

thanks to streetlawyer for the terrorism act clarification - as the london area is currently covered by yet another ongoing 28 day authorisation (these have been constantly renewed every 28 days since the act's inception), it is true to say that police don't have to give a reason, but put in the context of the continuous harrassment of steve jago and barbara tucker, this was yet another misuse of police powers. also to clarify what happened at the station, the arresting officers had begun to fill out a section 44 search form and then asked the custody sergeant if there was an easier way - it was then that he suggested the pace search as an alternative. so was all this to do with terrorism, or was it do with harrassment?

keep at it rikki, reports and clarifications like these are important.

utterly utterly blatant abuse going on here.

persistance WILL overcome...

- and that's the little people beating this abuse, and not the crazy political police grinding them down!

When we have coverage of those brave people that fight Blair's laws daily in London in order to spread the message about Blair's crimes against humanity, can we please have pictures of their protest 'art' and a summary of the things they wish to say ON EACH AND EVERY ARTICLE YOU PUBLISH.

You see, these people protest for a reason, and when that reason is not clearly spelt out when issues involving these poeple are discussed, their cause is downplayed. These people do not protest in order to become martyrs (although they are, of course, happy to expose the disgusting laws that now limit our freedom of speech). They protest to spread a message that they believe in with such conviction that they are willing to risk everything.

Now Blair and his people will HATE IT if pictures of their protest materials are shown (not all of them, of course, just a representative sample each time, scaled for bandwidth). Blair and his people will HATE IT is each article begins or ends with a summary of the positions these people are trying to get across.

You see, when an army invents new weapons, it usually seeks to make weapons that inflict horrible wounds, rather than outright death, if possible. Why? So that the enemy is forced to have to deal with the wounded, rather than fight the battle. The wounds are important, but winning the battle is far more important again.

In this case, the specific wounds are best helped by those that can offer specific legal assistance. For the rest of us, we are supposed to remember the REASON why these brave people are protesting.

I will NEVER forget that Mr Brian Haw was going through hell to tell people that Blair was carrying out vast crimes against Humanity ages before people like me could be bothered to even care enough to notice (I'm being humble- but sorry, I was never ever part of any political movement that aided Blair at any time in any way,which you most certainly cannot say about Galloway, Livingstone, Benn, Murray etc etc). I will keep my sense of shame about that fact forever, and never ever forget the bravery of this man.

The people that take on Blair with their protests can only be properly honoured if each and ever mention of them reminds people of why they protest. This means not assuming that people are already familiar (which disrespects new readers, and misses the possibility of showing us the latest protest art).

Blair 'wounds' the anti-war troops every time the police take action against those brave enought o protest in this way. The 'wounds' are meant to distract the movement as much as possible to the wounded, and away from their battle. The movement should have effective 'medics' but the movement's response to Blair's use of weapons made to wound MUST BE TO BLAST THE BATTLE MESSAGE AS LOUD AS POSSIBLE.

I've looked through the above article several times, and the battle message is totally missing.

I'll provide one on this occasion.

Never forget that Blair and his supporters, PAST and present, are directly responisble for genocide in Iraq, a depraved crime against Humanity that butchered more than one million people with sanctions kept in place by lies produced by the UK foreign office (why does THAT remind me of Craig Murray?) working with the Israeli government, and more than 650,000 as a direct consequence of the invasion (also enabled by foreign office lies).

You may guess that NONE of my heroes have EVER worked for Blair, or the UK Foreign Office in ANY capacity.

By the way, I hope you all noticed The Guardian having a good laugh about a certain issue.

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,1927726,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=12

QUOTE
Putin praises sexual prowess of Israeli president
UNQUOTE

What an amusing headline to use when discussing acts of rape by people in ultimate positions of power. My enemies are rapists, and The Guardian thinks that you should find that funny.

If the head of Iran was accused of rape, every article in this newswire would be demanding the destruction of Iran NOW. "muslim leader disgusts world by praising acts of rape by Iran's president" would be the headline EVERYWHERE, and you all know this.

My point? Why are certain reports crafted the way they are. Why mention the people who protest in London if you cannot be bother to tell, each and every time, the things they risk their lives to protest about. Blair would hate it. The Neocons would hate it. The uniformed thugs in London would hate it. The pro-war members of Blair's New Reich party would hate it. SO WHY NOT DO IT?

The Israelis' loved the spin given on yet another one of their depraved crimes by The Guardian. A co-incidence? Of course not.

AGAIN, BLAIR WANTS YOU TO TALK ABOUT THE WOUNDS HE INFLICTS, AND ***NOT*** THE REASON WHY THE WOUNDED WERE FIGHTING. Feel free to disbelieve me (as always) but do a little research into the tactics of governmental operations. "Reduce a movement down to one man, and then make the focus the issues about that man." It's an old old trick. A nice recent example lies with the now well exposed methods that targetted Martin Luther King. Did Martin Luthor King fight for Martin Luthor King, or did he fight for rights for blacks and others. To read some of the regulars here, you would be conviced that it was the former.

That's a really good point, haw is harrassed for protesting but harrassed for protesting an illegal war.