Demonstration Defends Freedom Of Protest
Neon Black | 23.12.2007 15:03 | Animal Liberation | Repression | Social Struggles | Liverpool
Cop tries to lay down the law
- video/avi 6.8M
Mathew Street Webcam 1
Police arriving
Who's trying to intimidate who?
Mathew Street webcam 2
And then they leave!
Mathew Street webcam 3
The police van arrived half an hour into the protest, and the main bossy officer immediately demanded to know who was in charge. On hearing that we all were, he ordered everyone against the wall. Apparently there were "people trying to get past", although the massive police van would have been a trickier obstacle. Reading from notes, he then told us he was "limiting the numbers to four people only", and that "any more than four people, you'll be in breach of the conditions". But the conditions of what? "Conditions imposed under Section 12 of the Public Order Act". Unfortunately for him, this section only applies to 'public processions', which someone pointed out. "Oh right sorry...", he blustered, "this assembly is controlled by Section 14 of the Public Order Act", and threatened arrest for anyone over the four. His tone then became even more condescending, repeatedly asking people if they understood, even though he'd already shown he didn't really know what he was doing. "We'll argue in court, as we have done before", he sneered, before heading into the shop to consult with the Cricket security.
Over the next few minutes, we debated what to do. Eventually, we decided it wasn't worth getting arrested, four people volunteered to stay, and the rest of us began to move off. But so did the police, without even saying goodbye! So we went back, and twenty protesters stood outside Cricket for the next hour and half, holding banners and placards, chanting, and handing out leaflets, while their van hid round the corner.
So didn't they fancy the paperwork? Or maybe they'd taken a look at the letter of the law, and realised they couldn't prove we were likely to cause 'serious public disorder', 'serious criminal damage', 'serious disruption to the life of the community', or even 'intimidation'. No-one was intimidated, and even though it looks like the police have been told to clear the streets of protesters for Xmas and the Capital of Culture, a small blow was struck for freedom this afternoon.
Neon Black
Homepage:
http://dreaming-neon-black.blogspot.com
Comments
Hide the following 3 comments
Well done
24.12.2007 00:24
It's time for us all to take a stand against the State’s assault on our European Convention rights and liberties. Government by consent, not by diktat.
I’m sure you'll all be joining in the Freedom of Assembly National Day of Action on Sat 12th Jan:
dv
Links to other relevant reports
24.12.2007 00:36
Preserving disorder: freedom to protest and the future of SOCPA - IMC-UK feature
dv
It’s just not Cricket - fur protester’s anger at arrest
24.12.2007 10:22
The anti-fur campaigners said they were forced to return to the Mathew Street boutique, Cricket, on Saturday to demonstrate not against the use of real fur, but in support of the civil liberties they claim police are attempting to curtail.
The protest was arranged after campaigner Katy Brown, of Edge Hill, was arrested outside the store for handing out leaflets close to the shop doorway.
Merseyside police say they respect people’s rights to make “peaceful protest”, but will apply the law if those rights are abused.
Ms Brown claims she was sworn at and “man-handled” by officers.
She was taken to St Anne Street police station, where she was held for six hours, interviewed and charged with failure to comply with a condition imposed by a senior officer under Section 14 of the Public Order Act.
However, Ms Brown said she was shocked and horrified when bail conditions forbade her from entering Liverpool city centre and she claimed it is unclear as to whether her own home lies within the mile and a half radius exclusion zone.
Ms Brown said: “The campaign against Cricket has been ongoing for the past 12 months. The police reaction has been at times excessive and highly inconsistent.
“But what happened to me only further strengthens the need for as many people as possible to attend and stand up against the oppressive behaviour of the police who seem hell-bent on stifling legal protest.
“I really feel that this campaign is becoming as much about defending what little right to protest we are still allowed as much as Cricket selling fur.
“Our protests are always peaceful and we never obstruct entrance to the store. Yet the police’s response has been over the top, draconian and heavy-handed.”
Ms Brown continued: “I am more angry about the erosion of civil liberties generally and the increasing illegalisation of any form of effective protest than I am about my individual treatment.
“However, I did try and explain that my bail conditions would not only prevent me form being at home but would stop me travelling into the city centre for work.
“They restrict me from going about the majority of my normal lawful business.
“I won't even be able to go home to my parents for Christmas using public transport, according to these conditions – which have been imposed basically because I was stood in a street handing out leaflets. It is ridiculous and wrong.”
Ms Brown has complained to Merseyside Police about the way she was treated by officers and on Friday her bail conditions were lifted to ban her only from Mathew Street.
In a letter to Ms Brown, City Inspector Damien Walsh said: “Merseyside Police respects the right of individuals to mount a ‘peaceful protest’, but if protesters abuse that right or use unlawful means to further their aims, they can expect to be dealt with in accordance with the law.”
Caroline Innes, Liverpool Daily Post