"Welcome to Ledbury otherwise known as the Police State"
Netcu Watch | 02.03.2007 22:49 | Animal Liberation | Repression | Birmingham
When three animal rights campaigners turned up outside Sequani Limited (an animal testing firm in Ledbury, Herefordshire) in August 2006 to hold a peaceful and lawful demonstration against animal testing, they later referred to the town of Ledbury as 'the police state'.
No sooner had campaigners who were displaying inoffensive anti-vivisection posters arrived outside the lab west mercia police issued all present with section 5, section 50, section 60 and a section 42 orders.
See a short video of some of the day's events at
http://www.vivisection.info/midsanimalconcern/clip.html (Quicktime file)
Since August 2006 numerous complaints have been filed regarding the undemocratic activities of the west mercia constabulary.
Regular protests outside Sequani take place every week.
Notes
Section 5 Public Order Act 1986 - Conduct likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress
Section 50 Police Reform Act 2002 - This makes it an offence to refuse to give your name and address to a police officer, where the officer reasonably suspects that you have engaged in “anti-social behaviour”.
Section 60AA Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 - authorisation confers power on an officer in uniform:
(a) to remove any item which the officer reasonably believes is used wholly or mainly for the purpose of concealing his identity and
(b) to seize any item which the officer reasonably believes any person intends to wear wholly or mainly for that purpose.
Section 42 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 - confers power on the police to impose conditions on demonstrations taking place outside someone's home.
See a short video of some of the day's events at
http://www.vivisection.info/midsanimalconcern/clip.html (Quicktime file) Since August 2006 numerous complaints have been filed regarding the undemocratic activities of the west mercia constabulary.
Regular protests outside Sequani take place every week.
Notes
Section 5 Public Order Act 1986 - Conduct likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress
Section 50 Police Reform Act 2002 - This makes it an offence to refuse to give your name and address to a police officer, where the officer reasonably suspects that you have engaged in “anti-social behaviour”.
Section 60AA Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 - authorisation confers power on an officer in uniform:
(a) to remove any item which the officer reasonably believes is used wholly or mainly for the purpose of concealing his identity and
(b) to seize any item which the officer reasonably believes any person intends to wear wholly or mainly for that purpose.
Section 42 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 - confers power on the police to impose conditions on demonstrations taking place outside someone's home.
Netcu Watch
Homepage:
http://www.vivisection.info/netcu_watch/
Comments
Hide 8 hidden comments or hide all comments
Why?
03.03.2007 13:03
765bkj
Why not?
03.03.2007 18:04
Parker
Because.
03.03.2007 20:00
765bkj
multiple factors?
03.03.2007 21:47
Parker
Really?
04.03.2007 00:02
Turn up outside a company like this covered up like they did is conduct likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. I can see it now, refused to give name and address and police went on to inact what powers they had at hand.
Not suprised the animal rights movement is fucked!!
765bkj
Blubber, Squeak and then some
04.03.2007 01:04
Parker
haha
04.03.2007 01:12
really? now check out
Love is Liberation!!
BlackHole
pointless
04.03.2007 09:25
what a pointless bunch of comments.
765bkj wonders why protestors would wear hoodies - its pretty clear how desperate the cops were to get names and addresses, and worth noting that when the protestors declined to play ball, the cops didn't arrest.
Perhaps even those two cops were aware how undemocratic their claim that 'holding a placard is anti-social behaviour' really is, and how any serious court would struggle to back them on it.
Theres also plenty of evidence that cops gather the info and pass it on to lawyers such as Timothy Lawson Cruttenden so that they can include peaceful protestors in their injunctions, making them subject to arrest and imprisonment if they commit the 'anti-social' act of protesting again.
There is no requirement to give the cops your name and address if you haven't committed a crime, and they don't have good cause to suspect you of anti-social behaviour, and its clear that when the anti-social bill was passed that concerns about protestors being caught in the net were dismissed in debates as "never going to happen" and yet loads of cops threaten arrest in a blatant abuse of the legislation.
The two cops do not look intimidated - are not calling for back up and the banter between them and the demonstrators is pretty calm and light hearted.
Theres no point in arguing with a tosser like 765bkj who has no understanding of basic human rights, or the law. Let it go and vent its spleen on the letters pages of the Daily Mail, or in the police canteen when its next on shift.
Meanwhile - lets keep the newswire for news.
news not nonsense
Hide 8 hidden comments or hide all comments