Police state or the state of policing

[Gringo]

It seemed to appear that they weren't even sure when emergency legislation was going to be presented.

I suppose ACPO and their legal advice haven't quite decided upon what they want in it, yet.

Edit: Aren't there were quite a few legal experts in the Home Office (and one or two in the government)? Why, when the Home Office were told of the oral judgement, did they not look at getting advice themselves. If only the government had someone whom they could turn to for legal advice, some kind of senior legal advisor. An attorney general, perhaps.

For a couple of days this 'abberation' was presented as an abberation of judicial process, interpreting the letter not the spirit of the law.

It was refreshing to hear a different opinion on R4 that the judge was right and the police need to stop this abuse of the practice.

This was followed up with a letter to the yoghurt knitters by a group of solicitors (though I suspect the one from 'fitwatch' might be rantin rob in disguise)

yoghurtknittersdaily"]As support groups working with and solicitors representing people arrested at protests, including the recent student and anti-cuts protests, we have first-hand experience of the abuse of police bail (Report, 1 July). It is uncommon for people arrested at protests to be charged at the time. Instead the police routinely place people on police bail, often without even interviewing them. Then they remain on bail for many months and the police impose stringent bail conditions, the most common of which is a prohibition on attending further protests. Ultimately, many will never be charged.

It is clear to us that the police view the use of bail as part of a wider public order strategy aimed at disrupting protest movements. We therefore welcome the high court ruling ending this practice.

When the law was introduced 96 hours meant 96 hours, not 96 hours spread over 6 months.

Are the govt acting so slowly as the wording of whatever legislation they produce would be too obvious in terms of reach - it has to be explicit for the judges not to overrule it.

A friend of mine left his company to start up a rival venture. His previous employers weren't happy. They offered him more money, then tried to get him put on three months gardening leave, and when that failed they reported him for fraud of approx £20k (his outlet was turning over approx £2m per annum up from £600k when he joined 6 years ago).

He's been on police bail for 15 months, with nothing but (extremely) circumstancial evidence against him and it's massively affected his nature and confidence. There has been no new evidence for 15 months, but every three months he has to attend the station to get bailed again.

This law is being abused, how will it be replaced?

[peterms]

When did the Police move away from being upholders of the law to interpreters of the law.

Had a blazing row with some knobhead inspector in toxteth earlier, who was telling me he didn't consider the person we were talking about to have committed a crime...

He didn't like it when I told him I couldn't give a damn what he thought as his thoughts really weren't relevant. A crime had been committed and his job was to investigate and prepare a report for the Crown Prosecution Service and it was up to them to decide if this person in question was a witness or a defendant.

Mind you he wasn't happy anyway as the only reason he spoke to me in the first place was I told him I'd take it to the IPCC if he didn't do something about it.

They really are still out there trying to massage the crime figures downwards.

You're out of order there.

Which of these two statements, or something close to them, have you heard from the lips of a policeman?

a) I'm the law.

I'm a paid functionary whose job it is to act under the directives of laws passed by parliament, subject to court rulings which amend them and which affect my delegated powers accordingly. I am at all times subject to the law, and not above it.

Your interpretation of the British constitution, or what passes for it, may be out of step with the man with the mason's handshake and golf club membership. Lets hope you don't need a rapid response in the next few years.

[peterms]

When the law was introduced 96 hours meant 96 hours, not 96 hours spread over 6 months...

This law is being abused, how will it be replaced?

There's a complacency about how the police use the current law. They tend to fall back quickly on a formula which can be memorised easily and rolled out again and again, as do people in lots of jobs.

Plainly the 96 hour rule can't work in complex cases.

Plainly it is being abused in many other cases.

Still, we have the best brains in the country representing us in parliament and the judiciary, so I imagine it's only a matter of a day or so before this is resolved.

[snowychap]

This law is being abused, how will it be replaced?

With the law that ACPO wants (probably how they've been performing under PACE and some extra twists just for kicks - Phil Davies and the likes will love it).

Next step: extremely restrictive bail conditions and circumstances with little or no time limits (law abiding citizens need not worry blah blah blah).

[Gringo]

That's my concern. Emergency legislation to patch the existing law could have been enacted the next day - replacing the 'new evidence' requirement with a judicial view that charges were likely - not perfect, but you could have got that through both houses with a promise of reviewed legislation to follow in the next sitting. It would have taken 15 minutes to draft and be in place already.

But they're allowing the story to run with the sun et al reporting scare stories of rapists and nonces being set free because of stupid judges. So now public opinion is all facing in one direction, ie the requirement for the police to hold people as they see fit.

[snowychap]

Right, I see where you were going the other day about the emergency legislation. Good point.

[snowychap]

Stop emergency police bail bill, say lawyers

Top lawyers have signed an open letter which urges the government to halt its emergency police bail bill.

The emergency legislation will go through the Commons on Thursday as the government seeks to reverse a High Court judgement made in May.

That ruling stops police from bailing suspects for more than four days.

Lawyers against the bill say it means police will "bail and see" rather than investigate properly.

Signatories include the firm of solicitors who represented Paul Hookway, the murder suspect behind the original bail challenge, and leading criminal barristers.

'Excessively long'

In the letter, the lawyers argue that the emergency bail bill should be delayed because the carefully crafted powers within the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (Pace) had been "years in the making".

"[Pace] was preceded by scrutiny, public dialogue, Law Commission research, and proper, reasoned and appropriately allocated parliamentary debate.

"In the time since Pace has been in force, a slow shift has occurred, in which initial investigation and proper effective interrogation up to the 96 hours after arrest has been replaced in practice by a more recent trend of excessively long bail periods.

"We ask that if changes are to be made to this important area of public law, they take place not as a result of rushed emergency legislation."

Joseph Kotrie-Monson, from the firm which represented Mr Hookway, said: "The legislation is being rushed through now without proper debate to widen police powers, not to prevent chaos.

"The judgment in Hookway should have been a wake-up call in respect of this new emerging police practice of 'bail and see' rather than interview and investigate properly on the front end."

Some defence solicitors claim that bail times have been lengthening because police use it to keep suspects on a 'long leash'.

Mr Kotrie-Monson said he had one client who had been on bail for three years for an offence which would not lead to prison.

Publishing the emergency bill earlier in the week, Home Secretary Theresa May said: "The ability to bail suspects is a crucial part of how the police investigate criminals and protect victims.

"I will always give police the powers they need to protect the public, that is why emergency legislation is required."

The crisis was sparked by a ruling in the case of murder suspect Mr Hookway who had been released on police bail while detectives continued their investigation.

The judgement said that officers would have to re-arrest suspects in order to detain or question them again beyond the four-day - or 96-hour - period - and could only do so with "new evidence".

In practical terms, the judgement means police cannot order a suspect to return for further questioning or enforce bail restrictions such as bans on contacting witnesses, after the end of the four-day period.

[snowychap]

Anarchists should be reported, advises Westminster anti-terror police

What should you do if you discover an anarchist living next door? Dust off your old Sex Pistols albums and hang out a black and red flag to make them feel at home? Invite them round to debate the merits of Peter Kropotkin's anarchist communism versus the individualist anarchism of Emile Armand? No – the answer, according to an official counter-terrorism notice circulated in London last week, is that you must report them to police immediately.

This was the surprising injunction from the Metropolitan Police issued to businesses and members of the public in Westminster last week. There was no warning about other political groups, but next to an image of the anarchist emblem, the City of Westminster police's "counter terrorist focus desk" called for anti-anarchist whistleblowers stating: "Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy. Any information relating to anarchists should be reported to your local police."

The move angered some anarchists who complained that being an anarchist should not imply criminal behaviour. They said they feel unfairly criminalised for holding a set of political beliefs.

The feeling of disproportion was compounded by the briefing note author making a similar request about Islamist terrorists a few lines further down. Under an image of flag with a gold dot beneath some Arabic script it added: "Often seen used by al-Qaida in Iraq. Any sightings of these images should be reported to your local police."

"It unfairly implies that anyone involved in anarchism should be known to the police and is involved in an dangerous activity," said Jason Sands, an anarchist from South London. "There is nothing inherently criminal about political philosophy whatever it is. The police work under the convention on human rights which disallows discrimination against people because of their political beliefs and even the request for information would seem to be in breach of that. It also seems to be a bit useless as a way of gathering intelligence. It isn't focused on anything specific and they are just asking for general information. Imagine calling up and saying 'there's an anarchist in my building. What should I do?' It doesn't make sense."

The note was issued from Belgravia Police Station as part of Project Griffin which aims to "advise and familiarise managers, security officers and employees of large public and private sector organisations across the capital on security, counter-terrorism and crime prevention issues".

Sean Smith, external relations officer for Solfed, the British section of the anarcho-syndicalist International Workers' Association, said of the call for whistleblowers: "It's pretty absurd, but not surprising, when the state seeks to criminalise ideas it deems to be dangerous to its own survival".

"We are a revolutionary union initiative," he explained. "Members of our organisation believe in bringing about radical social change through workplace and community organising, not acts of terrorism. We have made extensive information about our ideas and strategy freely available online."

Small groups of anarchists masked and dressed in black did cause some damage to shop windows in central London during anti-cuts demonstrations in the Spring, but there has been little activity of late. The next big anarchist event in London appears hardly likely to concern the police. It is a book fair in October with "all-day cabaret starring assorted ranters, poets, singers and comics; all-day film showings and two kids' spaces".

[Gringo]

More bad apples

Cleveland Police Chief Constable Sean Price arrested

Cleveland Police's chief constable and his deputy have been arrested in an investigation into allegations of fraud and corruption, the BBC understands.

[snowychap]

Something along the lines of criminals in Cleveland pay the Price.

[snowychap]

Kenneth Clarke plans secret court hearings to avoid revealing intelligence

Intelligence gathered by MI5 and MI6, even if obtained by torture, will never be disclosed in court proceedings and more inquests would be heard in private under proposals announced by the justice secretary, Kenneth Clarke.

The proposals – in a green paper called Justice and Security – have been welcomed by the security and intelligence agencies, but criticised by civil rights groups for promoting "secret justice".

,,,

Last year, the supreme court rejected the government's attempts to suppress evidence in civil cases, accusing it of undermining fundamental common law rights. To prevent further intelligence evidence being disclosed in court, the government subsequently paid compensation to the former Guantánamo detainees.

Clarke indicatedin the Commons on Wednesday that the compensation amounted to about £20m, and 30 other cases were in the pipeline.

Under the government's plans, all "sensitive" information held by MI5 and MI6 would be discussed in secret court hearings. "Special advocates", security vetted and approved by the government, would see the information on behalf of individual defendants or claimants but not would not be able to reveal it to them.

Such procedures, or alternatively vetted jurors, could also be used in coroners' inquests, the government has said. An alternative would be to vet family members, but the government concedes that "could be extremely distressing for a family grieving the loss of a relative" and that some relatives may not agree.

"In many cases, the facts cannot … be used in open court … without risking serious damage to national security or international relations," ," Clarke said.

"Difficulties arise both in cases in which individuals are alleging government wrongdoing, and in cases in which the government is seeking to take executive action against individuals who pose a risk to the public."

...

more on link

Shame on you, Ken.

[tinker]

Shame on our whole democracy.....its being pulled apart bit by bit, following CHINAS model i fear....

[peterms]

The argument will be that such provisions would be used against only the most dangerous people who are trying to overthrow civilisation as we know it, and enslave us all.

The truth is that they are already sanctioning police lying in court under oath in cases against nonviolent treehuggers who hold street parties to protest against cars taking over our streets.

Clarke and the rest of them are lying when they claim there is good reason for these measures, and that they will be used only in extremis. They are acting shamefully in eroding our rights, and they must be stopped.

Police chiefs are facing damaging allegations that they authorised undercover officers embedded in protest groups to give false evidence in court in order to protect their undercover status.

Documents seen by the Guardian suggest that an undercover officer concealed his true identity from a court when he was prosecuted alongside a group of protesters for occupying a government office during a demonstration.

From the moment he was arrested, he gave a false name and occupation, maintaining this fiction throughout the entire prosecution, even when he gave evidence under oath to barristers. The officer, Jim Boyling, and his police handlers never revealed to the activists who stood alongside him in court that he was actually an undercover policeman who had penetrated their campaign months earlier under a fake identity.

Boyling was undercover, using the name Jim Sutton, between 1995 and 2000 in the campaign Reclaim the Streets, which organised colourful, nonviolent demonstrations against the overuse of cars, such as blocking roads and holding street parties.

Boyling and the protesters were represented by the same law firm, Bindmans, as they held sensitive discussions to decide how they were going to defend themselves in court. The activists allege that Boyling and his superiors broke the campaigners' fundamental right to hold legally protected consultations with their lawyers and illicitly obtained details of the private discussions.

The real danger to our liberty and our way of life is the government, and those among the police who knowingly break the law in this way.

[Xann]

5 Live Investigates was just on.

They're were talking to a lobbyist.

They asked him how he gained access to MPs and civil servants. He explained they all attended various functions, dinners and conferences.

Yesterday he'd been present at a demonstration of a new camera for aircraft. This plane wasn't just capable of reading number plates from several thousand feet, it used facial recognition software to identify drivers.

The other interviewee couldn't believe he'd said it on the radio.

It was about 15 minutes in.

[bickster]

5 Live Investigates was just on.

They're were talking to a lobbyist.

They asked him how he gained access to MPs and civil servants. He explained they all attended various functions, dinners and conferences.

Yesterday he'd been present at a demonstration of a new camera for aircraft. This plane wasn't just capable of reading number plates from several thousand feet, it used facial recognition software to identify drivers.

The other interviewee couldn't believe he'd said it on the radio.

It was about 15 minutes in.

I heard it too, took a min or two to sink in but... Orwell wasn't far off the reality of the situation these days.

[PompeyVillan]

MI5 are MI5, you can order them to do whatever the hell you want them to, they'll never disclose what they get up to. And I prefer it that way personally.

[Eames]

The argument will be that such provisions would be used against only the most dangerous people who are trying to overthrow civilisation as we know it, and enslave us all.

The truth is that they are already sanctioning police lying in court under oath in cases against nonviolent treehuggers who hold street parties to protest against cars taking over our streets.

Clarke and the rest of them are lying when they claim there is good reason for these measures, and that they will be used only in extremis. They are acting shamefully in eroding our rights, and they must be stopped.

Police chiefs are facing damaging allegations that they authorised undercover officers embedded in protest groups to give false evidence in court in order to protect their undercover status.

Documents seen by the Guardian suggest that an undercover officer concealed his true identity from a court when he was prosecuted alongside a group of protesters for occupying a government office during a demonstration.

From the moment he was arrested, he gave a false name and occupation, maintaining this fiction throughout the entire prosecution, even when he gave evidence under oath to barristers. The officer, Jim Boyling, and his police handlers never revealed to the activists who stood alongside him in court that he was actually an undercover policeman who had penetrated their campaign months earlier under a fake identity.

Boyling was undercover, using the name Jim Sutton, between 1995 and 2000 in the campaign Reclaim the Streets, which organised colourful, nonviolent demonstrations against the overuse of cars, such as blocking roads and holding street parties.

Boyling and the protesters were represented by the same law firm, Bindmans, as they held sensitive discussions to decide how they were going to defend themselves in court. The activists allege that Boyling and his superiors broke the campaigners' fundamental right to hold legally protected consultations with their lawyers and illicitly obtained details of the private discussions.

The real danger to our liberty and our way of life is the government, and those among the police who knowingly break the law in this way.

Bit disingenuous don't you think Pete?

Clarke had nothing to do with the events highlighted in the article since the investigationand trial took place under Labour. Or was that the Tories fault as well for not being a better opposition?

[snowychap]

Protester receives Olympics asbo

London man who opposed construction of basketball venue believed to be first to receive wide-ranging ban from Olympics

An activist who took part in a protest against the construction of an Olympic facility says he has been handed a court order banning him from approaching any Olympic venue, activity or official.

The interim antisocial behaviour order (asbo) given to Simon Moore, 29, is believed to be the first pre-emptive Olympic asbo requested by Scotland Yard to prevent protests at the Games. It also bars Moore from going near events to mark the Queen's diamond jubilee, the trooping of the colour and the state opening of parliament.

Perhaps the most restrictive clause decrees that "trespassing on, or without the permission of the owner to interfere with, any building or land" would also contravene the asbo. Since breaching the order can result in jail, this section effectively criminalises all trespass, generally a civil matter.

Moore was among a group of residents and people associated with the Occupy movement who attempted to stop the construction of a basketball practice facility on Leyton Marsh, a green space near the Olympic park in east London. Protesters and their tents were removed from the site last week after the landowners won a court order.

Moore, who lives in west London but formerly spent time at the Occupy protest camp near St Paul's Cathedral in central London, said he was charged with a public order offence after refusing a police officer's order to leave the site. He admitted the offence in court and was briefly jailed.

On leaving Thamesmead prison in south-east London on Saturday, Moore said he was met by an officer from Scotland Yard's public order division, CO11, who handed him an envelope containing the asbo, approved by Westminster magistrates court.

"Just as I got out of custody a detective sergeant appeared out of nowhere and said, 'This is for you,' " Moore said. "It was unexpected. I'm already subject to two injunctions relating to Leyton Marsh, so I thought that would be pretty solid. I then looked at the prohibitions and yes, they're pretty extensive.

"I've got no intention of disrupting the Olympic ceremonies, the sporting events, the torch, let alone the diamond jubilee, the trooping of the colour, the state opening of parliament, any of them. It's like a pre-crime thing – they're suggesting that that is my intention. I imagine I won't be the last person to receive one of these."

The asbo, which will be either confirmed or overturned by magistrates at the start of May, prohibits Moore from going within 100 yards of any Olympic-related venue, "route" or the home of participants, officials or spectators, or approaching any road where the Olympic torch will pass that day.

More wide-ranging clauses bar "any activity that disrupts the intended or anticipated official activities of the Olympic Games or diamond jubilee celebrations", and obstructing the movement or passage of Olympic athletes, officials or spectators.

Moore said he believed the final clause, making any trespass a breach of the order, was intended to stop him taking part in any Occupy-style protest involving the pitching of tents.

A Scotland Yard spokesman said it was not known whether any similar orders had been applied for by the force.

Really? :shock:

More detail from here:

An ‘interim ASBO’ (anti-social behaviour order) given to one of the three people arrested during a protest at Leyton Marsh on 10 April gives an indication of the kind of harsh restrictions likely to face anyone daring to protest against the Olympics this summer.

Simon Moore, who along with Daniel Ashman and Anita Olivacce pleaded guilty to breaching Section 14 of the Public Order Act, after refusing to comply with police instructions to leave. All three also refused to pay a £200 fine and were therefore sentenced to five days imprisonment. On leaving Belmarsh prison in Thamesmead on Saturday, Simon was handed details of the ASBO by a Detective Sergeant from the Metropolitan Police’s Public Order Operational Command Unit (CO11), which prohibits the following activities:

1. Entering or remaining within 100 yards of any existing or proposed Olympic competition or practice venue or route or participant’s residence within England or Wales.
   
   Entering or remaining within 100 yards of any road being used on that day for the passage of the Olympic torch or on which any Olympic practice or competition is taking place, e.g. the Marathon, within England or Wales.
   
   Trespassing on, or without the permission of the owner to interfere with, any building or land.
   
   Taking part in any activity that disrupts the intended or anticipated official activities of the Olympic Games or Diamond Jubilee celebrations.
   
   Obstructing the movement or passage of any Olympic participant between their residence, practice venue, or place of work, and venues being used for competition or cultural purposes.

According to the order, "participants" include competitors, accredited officials and spectators, at or in the vicinity of venues at which Olympic events are taking place or are anticipated or intended to take place. "Diamond Jubilee celebrations" relates only to the State Opening of Parliament 9th May, the Royal River Pageant and other Jubilee events from 2nd-5th June and the Trooping of the Colour on 16th June.

Essentially, large areas of central and east London have potentially become prohibited spaces for Simon from May until the end of September, although I imagine the order will be vigorously challenged. But it looks as though ASBOs with widely drawn prohibitions are likely to become one of the weapons - along with pre-emptive arrests - that are used against Olympics opponents engaged in peaceful protest.

[Jon]

Protester receives Olympics asbo

Really? :shock:

More detail from here

Has echoes of for me

BIAD

[blandy]

5 Live Investigates was just on.

They're were talking to a lobbyist.....Yesterday he'd been present at a demonstration of a new camera for aircraft. This plane wasn't just capable of reading number plates from several thousand feet, it used facial recognition software to identify drivers.

The other interviewee couldn't believe he'd said it on the radio...

I heard it too, took a min or two to sink in but... Orwell wasn't far off the reality of the situation these days.

I've seen these cameras too. I must confess when I saw one in action, I was gobsmacked how good it was. Anyway, the point being, after thinking about it, that the resolution of the camera isn't a bad thing. Facial recognition software, were it to be tallied up to the camera isn't a bad thing. There are examples most people could think of where being able to identify someone from a long way away would be a very good thing indeed.

The issue comes if the camera is used across the board, indeterminately rather than as a particular tool for a particular situation or set of circumstances.

So I don't agree that a "plane wasn't just capable of reading number plates from several thousand feet, it used facial recognition software to identify drivers" is Big Brother-esque. It would only be that if the capability was used in a particular way by the state. That's what needs to be safeguarded against.