Mr Batsby defends freedom of speech

'It appears to be hateful and loathsome and vile to drunkenly utter on social media a racist taunt which you then withdraw, but it is fine to loudly and widely revel in the death of an octogenarian and hurl abuse of the most extreme kind at any who defend her legacy. And now it turns out that being from Liverpool places you in a special class affording you protection from nasty words, presumably because you can't handle them when they're coming your way.

Thus it was that Twitter stalwart @Old_Holborn  was by all accounts arrested yesterday (although this is yet to be confirmed at the time of writing) for tweeting harsh words about whiny Scousers, yet no such action seems to have been taken against any of the many that took it upon themselves to call for a mob to descend on his home and take the abuse from the merely verbal to the physical level.
...
We even allow frequent Islamic protesters to loudly and fanatically call for the actual death of all non-Muslims, yet quickly deploy police to turn away those holding counter protests, denouncing those views as hate crimes.
...
Arresting somebody for merely saying 'out loud' what a significant number of people are thinking is one step on the way to making opinions a legal matter.

And when we get to that point (this year, next year?) who will decide what opinions are acceptable? In fact, will we allow individual opinion - let's call it dissent - at all? I believe such things have been tried before and Winston Smith would easily recognise the sort of world that creates. What thought crimes have you committed today?'

More here http://batsby.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/to-death.html

'Secret law' storm as police chiefs ban public from knowing who they arrest: Shock new blanket ban in the wake of Leveson report angers civil liberty groups who condemn threat to democracy | Mail Online

'Britain's police chiefs are drawing up draconian rules under which the identities of people they arrest will be kept secret from the public.

The move, which follows a recommendation by Lord Justice Leveson in his report into press standards, has been branded an attack on open justice and has led to comparisons with police states such as North Korea and Zimbabwe.

Under current arrangements, police release basic details of a person arrested and in many cases will confirm a name to journalists. But the practice varies from force to force.

Under the new guidance, to be circulated by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), forces will be banned from confirming the names of suspects, even when journalists know the identity of someone who has been arrested.

Without official police confirmation, the legal risks of incorrect identification will prevent the media from publishing the names of suspects.'

An unintended (?)  consequence of Leveson? A step closer to a police state? Well done Hugh.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2305177/Secret-law-storm-police-chiefs-ban-public-knowing-arrest-Shock-new-blanket-ban-wake-Leveson-report-angers-civil-liberty-groups-condemn-threat-democracy.html

"... What if you are out of time..?"

A good question raised during this odd piece of video from Washington DC



The descriptionalongside the video runs:

'On May28, 2011 Television host Adam Kokesh and several other activists participating in a flash-mob were arrested at the publicly-funded Thomas Jefferson Memorial. Their crime? Silently dancing, in celebration of the first amendment's champion; a clear violation of their right to free-expression. In an excessive use of force, video was captured of Adam being body slammed and placed in a choke for his non-crime.'

I am not sure how much sympathy I have for the 'dancers' provocation but then the police don't come over at all well either.



Thanks to Boing Boing for the spot.

The role of the British police

Three relevant cases have come to my attention in the past few days. The best known is probably that of Michael Thompson who whilst driving his car in Grimsby noticed a mobile speed camera and that many oncoming cars seemed to be speeding. He decided to flash those cars to warn them to slow down. As a result he found himself in court and found guilty of wilfully obstructing a police officer in the course of their duties.Now this strikes me as rather peculiar. Did any of the drivers flashed by Michael Thompson slow down? If they did then surely the road was safer as a result and thus Michael Thompson was providing a public good. So what offence did Michael Thompson actually commit? I cannot see how Michael Thompson stopped the speed trap from working or interfered with the work of the Police. Was the role of the police officers on that day to measure the speed of passing vehicles and to fine any that were driving faster than the legal speed limit? If so then Michael Thompson did not obstruct their work.If this was not their assigned role, then what was it?


If Michael Thompson was simply warning others to adjust their, then, future behaviour so as to reduce their exposure to criminal liability then how is this wilfully obstructing a police officer in the course of their duties? Surely the signs outside every office that Smoking is not permitted within this building is also preventing a crime from being committed, is not a sign in a town centre advertising that CCTV is in operation is also designed to prevent a crime from being committed. Why are some crimes worthy of being prevented but motoring offences must be captured and the drivers prosecuted or fined?

I believe that the Crown Prosecution Service's case explanation included the note that The Highway Code informs drivers to

'Only flash your headlights to let other road users know that you are there. Do not flash your headlights to convey any other message or intimidate other road users.'

It would seem that Michael Thompson clearly breached this part of The Highway Code; however a breach of the Highway Code is not necessarily a criminal offence and that was not what Michael Thompson was charged with.

So why has Michael Thompson now got a criminal record? Is it simply because he encouraged others to stay within the law and upset a police officer by so doing?
Is this what the 21st century British police think their role is?


In another story, The Mail reports that:

'A police officer escorted an expectant mother to hospital just minutes before she gave birth - then slapped her husband with a ticket for speeding.

John Coughlin was handed the penalty for driving 102mph in a 55mph zone as he rushed wife Angela to the delivery room of the Catholic Medical Centre in Manchester, New Hampshire.

The trooper waited outside as the couple’s baby boy Kyle was born, six minutes after their arrival at the hospital, then pounced on the excited new father as he emerged to call relatives.'

That story is from the United States but I wonder if you doubt it could happen in the UK. The cases of jobsworth police issuing tickets to people they know will pay the fine, rather than looking to catch burglars, muggers and vandals are legion.


Finally Kable reports that:

'Millions of people who reported crimes have had their details stored on police databases

The revelation has emerged from information provided in response to a freedom of information request from the Press Association. It shows that police forces in England and Wales have kept data about people who call 999 or non-emergency numbers to report their concerns or pass on information.

The study discovered that West Midlands Police has more than a million records on people who have reported offences over the past 12 years.

Other forces, including Lancashire, Cleveland, Avon and Somerset, Gloucestershire, West Mercia and North Wales, hold more than 150,000 each.

The Press Association said that senior officers admitted the information could be used against people as part of any future police investigation. However, they insisted gathering the data was necessary to fight crime, protect the vulnerable and ensure concerns were dealt with properly.'

To the modern British police and their political masters, every member of the public is likely to be guilty of something and so should be watched. The number of crimes on the statute book increases year after year so that the State could choose when to arrest any one of us, after all we are all likely to have infringed one law or other at some time.


Over two years ago I blogged that:

'These transgression taxes are easy to collect if middle-class, law-abiding people are the transgressors and that is why it is them rather than the violent or dangerous that are targeted. A 'street warden' will be more likely to issue a fine to a 50 year-old householder whose bin is overfull because they had a party or who has managed to include a piece of plastic wrapping in the paper recycling bin, than he/she would be to try and fine six youths who are throwing empty beer cans at a bin on the High Street, and missing. The householder is easier to identify, more likely to pay and much less likely to give the "street warden" a good kicking.

If Michael Thompson had heeded my words and stayed cowed rather than protesting when pulled over by the police maybe he would not have been charged, fined and found himself the owner of a criminal record.

Land of the free?

Not in Arizona it would seem...


Or Los Angeles, does that look like the USA or China?

"We don't allow questions"

13 years of Labour rule summed up in those four words heard at around 36 seconds as a heckler is ejected from Gordon Brown's Sunderland press conference. "We don't allow questions", the mantra of fascist dictators, of the left and right, throughout the 20th century. "We don't allow questions", the mantra of the control-freak Labour poison that has infected this country for too long. "We don't allow questions", a line to be followed by "off to the re-education camp with you, bigot".

"out, out, attention seeking idiot!"

Meanwhile on stage you can see the assembled Labour Youth, applauding ferociously as opposition is crushed. The blonde girl, back left, will grow up to be another Jack Straw type apparatchik.



Meanwhile Nick Clegg's team show that there are ready for government...



And from the USA look what happens when the police are armed with Tasers, just like Labour want the British police to be; freedom of speech?

Criminalising the Population - Repost from last year

'For a while now my thoughts have been turning to possible reasons for why this Labour government have introduced so many laws but not enforced that many that well. My theory is that with so many laws available, they could use them to make anyone a "criminal" that they choose. In an average day the average London motorist probably breaks a couple of laws - straying into a box junction without the exit being clear, moving into a bus lane to pass a car turning right and blocking the only carriageway allowed to cars, etc. etc. etc. Add to traffic laws, laws relating to waste disposal, other environmental laws, laws preventing photography of policemen etc. etc. etc. and you have a situation where there are too many law-breakers to be dealt with by the police and courts BUT it does mean that the State (or Party) can decide who to investigate and prosecute. In effect we are all "criminals", it's just that most of us are allowed to evade the consequences of this "criminality" unless we incur the displeasure of the State/Party when we will suffer. At the moment the sentences for each of these "crimes" might be a year in prison, how long before it is a prison camp or worse?


Thanks to a comment on Devils Kitchen, here is an extract from Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" that seems pertinent:

"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against—then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be enforced nor objectively interpreted—and you create a nation of law-breakers—and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."'

Manchester declared a Police State

Red Rag alerts us to the news that on Friday

"in what they described as a twenty four hour crackdown on weapons and drink fuelled violence, Greater Manchester Police have set up checkpoints throughout the city forcing people through airport style metal detectors.

They must not be allowed to get away with this or twenty four hours will turn into permanent checkpoints. They make no claim of any terrorist threat or of any specific concerns at all, this is just a normal day in the city. Who would have believed that just thirteen years of Labour Government would have delivered a police state in one of our biggest cities? The police checkpoints have arrived even before the compulsory ID cards!"

If you vote Labour then what else can you expect but authoritarian police and the supression of freedom.

I’m a Photographer, Not a Terrorist!

I’m a Photographer, Not a Terrorist! invite all Photographers to a mass photo gathering in defence of street photography. Please try attend at 12 Noon in Trafalgar Square.

Transgression Taxes - an update

The Telegraph reports that:

"Fines for minor middle class crimes such as speeding, dropping litter and putting bins out on the wrong day are netting the police and town halls more than £400 million a year, new figures suggest.

...

Parking offences have helped rake in more than £330 million, while speeding fines have topped £100 million and on the spot fines for minor offences such as overfilling a dustbin has pulled in almost £12 million. "

Over a year ago I blogged that:

"These trangression taxes are easy to collect if middle-class, law-abiding peope are the transgressors and that is why it is them rather than the violent or dangerous that are targetted. A "street warden" will be more likely to issue a fine to a 50 year-old householder whose bin is overfull because they had a party or who has managed to include a piece of plastic wrapping in the paper recycling bin, that he/she would be to try and fine six youths who are throwing empty beer cans at a bin on the High Street, and missing. The householder is easier to identify, more likely to pay and much less likely to give the "street warden" a good kicking.

A side benefit of fining the law-abiding for minor transgressions is that it keeps them cowed and not inclined to protest in case they transgress some other law and end up in the Police Station. The consequences for a middle-class "criminal" are serious whilst for the aforementioned youths, it is just "an occupational liability". "

My how I hate this Labour government

The Labour government's war on the UK people continues apace. Back in October legislation was introduced that prevents acquitted defendants from recouping the full legal costs of defending themselves. Now these innocent people can only claim back legal aid rates, which can be as little as a third of the true cost. Why the change? Well it will save around £25 million a year - which used to sound a lot but under Gordon Brown's mismanagement of the economy is a drop in the debt ocean. I think the real reason may be somewhat different; let's say you upset the State/Labour government then they can just charge you with something complicated and financial and then even when you are found not guilty you could still be bankrupted by your no longer covered legal costs.

This is just the latest in a long line of Labour dilutions of the legal system: now we can be tried twice for the same crime, the presumption of innocence has been diluted, some people no longer have the right to see the evidence against them, summary punishment (fines) without trial are common place, innocent people's assets can be confiscated before trial and kept even the defendant is not found guilty. And don't forget that the amount of compensation you receive for loss of earnings whilst wrongly imprisoned is now paid less the cost of your prison bed and board.

Despicable, evil, insane? Well that's a Labour government for you.


And what do the protectors of civil society have to say?

"The Police Federation of England and Wales is backing the action because police officers are more often subject to criminal proceedings."

Fed up with the UK yet?

What are the police up to now?

Computing report that:

"The Metropolitan Police wants to buy £3m of handheld units for law enforcement agencies that would be capable of capturing facial, iris and fingerprint biometrics as well as reading chips held on credit cards and passports."

This country really has a problem with freedom.


Thanks to Dock Green for the spot.

The police and photographers (further update)

Further to my postings on the police's habit of stopping photography in public places and their seeming equating of photographers with terrorists, I have two pieces that may be of interest.

The first is a handy "Bust card" from "I'm a photographer not a terrorist". This might be best carried along with this Met Police guidance that I blogged about last month.

The second is a heads-up on a photo walk set for tomorrow - Saturday 15 August - assembly point is the Riverside Gardens in Chatham.

"Human rights" only for the guilty not for the innocent in Labour Britain

This Guardian article has got me really angry. I appears that:

"Chief constables across England and Wales have been told to ignore a landmark ruling by the European court of human rights and carry on adding the DNA profiles of tens of thousands of innocent people to a national DNA database.

Senior police officers have also been "strongly advised" that it is "vitally important" that they resist individual requests based on the Strasbourg ruling to remove DNA profiles from the national database in cases such as wrongful arrest, mistaken identity, or where no crime has been committed.

European human rights judges ruled last December in the S and Marper case that the blanket and indiscriminate retention of the DNA profiles and fingerprints of 850,000 people arrested but never convicted of any offence amounts to an unlawful breach of their rights.

...

The advice to senior officers comes in a letter from the Association of Chief Police Officers criminal records office. The letter, seen by the Guardian, tells chief constables that new Home Office guidelines following the ruling in the case of S and Marper are not expected to take effect until 2010.

"Until that time, the current retention policy on fingerprints and DNA remains unchanged," it says. "Individuals who consider they fall within the ruling in the S and Marper case should await the full response to the ruling by the government prior to seeking advice and/or action from the police service in order to address their personal issue on the matter.

"Acpo strongly advise that decisions to remove records should not be based on [the government's] proposed changes. It is therefore vitally important that any applications for removals of records should be considered against current legislation."

Nice isn't it, every criminal and asylum seeker seems to have their human rights protected but not innocent Brits.

The trouble is that the concept of freedom in the UK has been eroded so much by this most vile Labour government and their increasingly politicised police force that the freedom of the citizen is illusory. As I have said before, this Labour government and their putative masters in the EU want control and what better way to control us than to have our most basic details "on file" to do with as they will. Do you seriously believe that this government or its agents would not plant DNA of people they want to be "put away" so as to be able to to rid themselves of troublesome priests and bloggers. As George Orwell wrote in 1984, a book that this Labour government seem to have taken as a template rather than a warning,

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever."

Let's face facts that boot will be stamping on our collective faces until we somehow show some gumption and force change.

And to all those useful idiots who whine "if you've got nothing to hide then you've got nothing to fear", I remind you of Pastor Martin Niemöller's words:

"First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me."

They will come for us all eventually, so it is time to stand up now.

Why is the UK more and more coming to resemble a Soviet bloc country?

I have blogged previously about the Olympic vehicles only traffic lanes that will be instituted across London in 2012 and why I believe that this Labour government would happily keep them after the Olympics as lanes for state authorised transport. So I was unsurprised to learn that the politicised police have been given powers to enter private homes and seize political posters during the London 2012 Olympics. I was even less surprised to learn that the legislation had been so loosely drafted that they could be used to clamp down on almost any forms of legitimate protest.

This Labour government apparent determination to crush any dissent and to accumulate power and privilege for itself reminds me more and more of the former Soviet bloc regimes. Maybe the Marxist/Trotskyite backgrounds of so many senior Labour politicians has had another effect...

I am not a terrorist

I am not a terrorist, I am a photographer.

"Increasing concerns about terrorism, paedophilia, health and safety, personal privacy and plain old paranoia about pretty much anything Her Majesty’s subjects get up to has resulted in a deep mistrust of photographers.

Police routinely invoke anti-terror legislation to prevent photographers from carrying out their work, and photojournalists are constantly filmed at public gatherings and their details kept on an ever-growing database. Tourists, particularly foreign tourists, are also targeted by police, as was the case with an Austrian father and son recently who made the mistake of photographing a building of an extremely sensitive nature—Walthamstow bus station.
Put simply, Britain has become a no-photo zone, and so if you fail to comply, you may find yourself liable to attack, arrest or harassment. Recognising that Britain is not the only country where such a draconian anti-photographer culture is developing, the British Journal of Photography is beginning an international visual campaign to raise awareness.

Over the next year we hope to gather thousands of self-portraits of
photographers-professional and amateur—from around the world,
each holding up a white card with the words, ‘Not a crime’ or ‘I am not a terrorist’. "

The police and photographers

Here's some video form December 2008 that may be of interest...



Thanks to Journalism.co.uk for the spot.

The police and photographers (update)

Yesterday I blogged about the Metropolitan Police's issuance of guidance to its officers to remind them that using a camera in public is not in itself a terrorist offence. So it was with interest that I found this guidance and here it is in full (my emphasis): "Photography advice

The Metropolitan Police Service’s approach towards photography in public places is a subject of regular debate.

We encourage officers and the public to be vigilant against terrorism but recognise the balance between effective policing and protecting Londoners and respecting the rights of the media and the general public to take photographs.

Guidance around the issue has been made clear to officers and PCSOs through briefings and internal communications. The following advice is available to all officers and provides a summary of the Metropolitan Police Service’s guidance around photography in public places.


Freedom to photograph/film

Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel.



Photography and Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000

The Terrorism Act 2000 does not prohibit people from taking photographs or digital images in an area where an authority under section 44 is in place.



Officers have the power to view digital images contained in mobile telephones or cameras carried by a person searched under S44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, provided that the viewing is to determine whether the images contained in the camera or mobile telephone are of a kind, which could be used in connection with terrorism. Officers also have the power to seize and retain any article found during the search which the officer reasonably suspects is intended to be used in connection with terrorism.



Photography and Section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000

Officers have the power to view digital images contained in mobile telephones or cameras carried by a person searched under S43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to discover whether they have in their possession anything which may constitute evidence that they are involved in terrorism. Officers also have the power to seize and retain any article found during the search which the officer reasonably suspects may constitute evidence that the person is involved in terrorism.

Section 58a of the Terrorism Act 2000

Section 58a of the Terrorism Act 2000 covers the offence of eliciting, publishing or communicating information about members of the armed forces, intelligence services or police.

Any officer making an arrest for an offence under Section 58a must be able to demonstrate a reasonable suspicion that the information was of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.

It should ordinarily be considered inappropriate to use Section 58a to arrest people photographing police officers in the course of normal policing activities, including protests, as without more, there is no link to terrorism.

There is however nothing preventing officers asking questions of an individual who appears to be taking photographs of someone who is or has been a member of Her Majesty’s Forces (HMF), Intelligence Services or a constable."

The Police and photographers

I have covered the subject of Police harassment of photographers on many occasions, most recently here, so I was relieved to read this in The Register:

"The Metropolitan Police has issued guidance to its officers to remind them that using a camera in public is not in itself a terrorist offence.

...

The guidance reminds officers that the public do not need a licence to take photographs in the street and the police have no power to stop people taking pictures of anything they like, including police officers.

The over-used Terrorism Act of 2000 does not ban photography either, although it does allow police to look at images on phones or cameras during a search to see if they could be useful to a terrorist.

Section 58 of the Act covers the offence of eliciting, publishing or communicating information about any member of the armed forces, spying agencies or the police. But officers must show a reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in terrorism - it is not a blanket ban on photographing working police officers."

Finally some common sense on this subject. Now where can I get hold of this "guidance"?

Mocking the leader

My recent pieces about the open mocking of Gordon Brown in the main stream media (MSM) as well the right of centre blogosphere came to my mind as I read this piece from The Telegraph about "Ahmadinejad mocked at World Cup qualifier ahead of election". One passage really caught my eye

"once on the terraces, the supporters quickly showed their respective political colours again. "Bye bye Ahmadinejad," cheered the Mousavi supporters. "He hasn't had a shower for two weeks," they added, a cruel reference to the Iranian leader's alleged personal hygeine problems."

It struck me that we may have less freedom of expression in the UK than people enjoy in Iran. These were thousands of people opening chanting an insult to their President with no repercussions. In the UK people have been made to cover up "Bollocks to Blair" T-shirts.

Maya Anne Evans was arrested for simply standing by the Cenotaph and reciting a list of names. She was prosecuted under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act. On 7 December 2005, Maya Evans, a vegan chef aged 25, was convicted of breaching the new Serious Organised Crime and Police Act by reading aloud at the Cenotaph the names of 97 British soldiers killed in Iraq. So serious was her crime that it required 14 policemen in two vans to arrest her. She was fined and given a criminal record for the rest of her life.

Also in 2005, John Catt was wearing a T-shirt proclaiming "Bush Blair Sharon to be tried for war crimes torture human rights abuse" and, lower down, "the leaders of rogue states". The stop-and-search form filled out by the police officer stated, under grounds for intervention, "carrying plackard and T-shirt with anti-Blair info". The purpose of the stop and search was stated as "terrorism". So now we know. For the Sussex police, at any rate, an anti-Blair slogan is a ground for suspecting terrorism.

Then there was Walter Wofgang who attended the 2005 Labour Party conference as a visitor and sat at the back of the hall in the part of the hall reserved for visitors. During a speech by the then Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, in response to Jack Straw's statement that "We are in Iraq for one reason only: to help the elected Iraqi government build a secure, democratic and stable nation", Wolfgang shouted "Nonsense!". Some witnesses claimed he then may have added "That's a lie and you know it!" and/or "Pack of lies!". In full view of the television cameras Walter Wofgang was picked up and forcibly removed from the hall and had his security pass confiscated. Erith and Thamesmead Constituency Labour Party chairman Steve Forrest, who was sitting nearby, was also removed (more forcibly) for voicing his objections to Wolfgang's treatment. When Wolfgang attempted to re-enter the conference later the same day, his pass showed that he had been removed previously, and he was briefly held by police under section 44 of the Terrorism Act.


The United Kingdom used to be described as a beacon of free speech; I fear that beacon was dimmed by Tony Blair and that it burns no brighter under Gordon "no referendum, no election" Brown.




For an interesting article about the legal ramifications of the Walter Wofgang case, do take a read of Marcel Berlins' Guardian article from 2005. Please note that the references to masturbating judges relate to the USA and France and not to the UK's judiciary.