Thanks for posting this link, Doug.

On one hand, it didn't need a Parliamentary Committee to state the bleedin' obvious, but it's good that such an official body has come to essentially the same conclusions that Indymedia posters have been saying for ages.

Let's hope that the Committee's recommendations are turned into action.

I have only heard the reports of this recommendation on Radio 4 and not read the orignial document but it is being reported that the police should not use anti terror powers etc against 'lawful' protesters. If so then police can simply declare a protest unlawful and carry on as they wish.

Even though it might sound like a vindication of our grievances against legislation and policing of protest, there are some aspects in this report that are damaging. For example:
‘131. We recommend that the parliamentary authorities work with the police to develop clear conditions which can be imposed on protestors under the Public Order Act, amended if necessary to achieve this aim, to ensure that access is maintained at all times. Conditions might include requiring protestors to keep clear of the vehicular access points, to permit access to Parliament and to ensure public safety around the gates. This would be a more flexible means of throwing a cordon around Parliament during times of vigorous protest than can be provided for in primary legislation and need not unduly restrict small scale protests or protest on non-sitting days.'

'SUPPLEMENTING THE PUBLIC ORDER ACT

137. We consider that protest around Parliament should be governed by the Public Order Act, in particular the police power to impose conditions on protests under section 14. There is a case, however, for amending section 14 to deal with the specific circumstances of Parliament. Although the Public Order Act could be invoked if protestors sought to prevent people from entering Parliament, it is unlikely to be of assistance where there is doubt as to whether the "purpose" of the organisers is "to intimidate others". Consequently, we recommend that the Public Order Act should be amended to enable conditions to be placed on static protests where they seriously impede, or it is likely that they will seriously impede, access to Parliament. We set out an amendment to achieve this, below.'

‘We recommend that the Home Office, the police, Westminster City Council and the parliamentary authorities should develop alternative arrangements to manage noise levels from protest in Parliament Square, including consideration of whether legislative change is necessary and whether maximum noise levels should be imposed and enforced effectively.’

Basically, the report is asking for an extension of police powers under the Public Order Act (after sections 132 -138 of Socpa are repealed, of course).

However, overall, the most important damaging effect of this report is, in my opinion, the attempt to close down any further debate regarding restrictions, interferences and straightforward attacks by the police on our freedom to protest. Not wanting to spoil people's enthusiasm, but what happened during the protests against the massacres in Gaza last December and January, which are not even mentioned in this report, says a lot regarding the progressive disappearance of our (or at least, some of us) ability to exercise fundamental freedoms without fear of repression.

Well, they'll need a legal basis to declare a protest unlawful. Fortunately, not that easy.

Also, not sure if someone's noticed the comical bit in the report:

‘As part of our inquiry, we visited France, Spain, Northern Ireland and the Metropolitan Police Central Communications Command Centre. The visits were extremely beneficial to us in forming a view on the practice of the UK in relation to policing protest. Both the Spanish and French systems have merits. We were impressed by the high value given to protest in Spain, and the tolerance of the authorities towards it.'

For those who have protested in Spain and/or have seen recently events in Barcelona.

Political pressure on CO11 is all to the good, but we can't leave it to the politicians / liberals to fight our battles for us. If we do, then we shouldnt be surprised if the only people who benefit are the liberal 'peaceful' protesters.

What all this does give us is a good opportunity to put our own bit of pressure on the public order unit / FIT, while we have public support behind us. We can make their tactics unworkable, and there is nothing that will get rid of them quicker than that.

We have the ability to shut down the FIT teams, break out of their cordons and refused to be pushed around by stop and searches. This is as good a time as any to assert our own bit of muscle.

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/22/gordon-brown-terrorism

MPs: Police obstruction of journalists is unacceptable
 http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=43400&c=1

Parliamentary committee calls for police training in role of protest journalists
 http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2009/03/23/parliamentary-committee-calls-for-police-training-in-role-of-protest-journalists/

shortly after this corrupt government of liars thieves and murderers were forced to admit in writing in april 2008 - (when they just happened to disappear me to holloway to try and get rid of me yet again) - that "unauthorised demonstration offences under socpa 2005 could not be proceeded with" - because they were repeatedly with their backs against the wall with no - legal - defence since being served with an abuse of process argument re: socpa 2005 ss 132-138 that they lost on 14th september 2006 at COWMC - that was then filed in subsequent judicial review proceedings in the high court - with high court judges quite literally running from still ongoing proceedings during 2007/8/9 - particularly - over the return of the display that was illegally stolen by 78 MET police from parliament square on 23rd may 2006.

in july 2008 - the MET suddenly started harassing the bemused parliament square peace campaign - using s17 "searches" - in what is now seen to be a further cynical attempt to head off having to return the display - by dragging the campaign into civil proceedings against the MET where they are desperately seeking a hearing - with brian haw - to get - a judgement with the words "security risk" in it - which as the corrupt jchr make clear could then be used against the campaign - to impose new "conditions" on the campaign under new legislation - which would mean the government could still keep the display.

which part of the people say NO to this corrupt parliament's illegal wars of aggression and extraordinary rendition etc do these war criminals not get ??