Hah! Enjoy your new police state - don't say no one warned you

[HoreTore]

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,,2146693,00.html

So apparently, environmentalists have become terrorists... If they were planning to blow up planes I could understand it, however, they(the most radical ones, that is), are simply planning to disrupt air travel...

The Guardian has established that at least two climate change campaigners have been arrested recently at Heathrow by officers using terrorism powers. Cristina Fraser, a student, was stopped when cycling near the airport with a friend and then charged under section 58 of the Terrorism Act. This makes it an offence to make a record of something that could be used in an act of terrorism.

"I was arrested and held in a police cell for 30 hours. I was terrified. No one knew where I was. They knew I was not a terrorist," she said.

[English assassin]

Oh dear. My head says this is indeed bad stuff and what about civil liberties.

My heart says I don't care and what about they all have baths and get jobs.

[Husar]

They could just protest elsewhere. It's not like noone would notice them at Piccadilly Circus.
And annoying people is not the best way to get sympathy anyway.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oh dear. My head says this is indeed bad stuff and what about civil liberties.

My heart says I don't care and what about they all have baths and get jobs.

As a Man of Law you should be personnally offended. Then you should offer to take on their case.

Unless you're a Barrister, in which case you'll have to wait for them to ask you.

Moving on...

Missuse of legislation which is obviously wrong and yet completely legal.:thumbsdown:

[English assassin]

As a Man of Law you should be personnally offended. Then you should offer to take on their case.

Unfortunately, I work for money, as well as love, and I don't take payment in tofu. :laugh4:

[naut]

Well they can't protest within 1 mile of Westminster or Number 10 Downing Street because of fascist laws, so where else have they got to go?

[KukriKhan]

Search people even if they do not have evidence to suspect them

Ah, what we Yanks call the 'probable cause' provision for searches. That would be a tricky one. I presume the thinking /argument would be: 'If they don't carry luggage (like a typical airline passenger), they must be there for some other - possibly bad - reason'. And therefore searchable.

From the point-of-view of police: I can see their concern that a violent-intent badguy could infiltrate a peaceful demonstration.

From the point-of-view of a demonstrator: search, siezure & detention merely for participating in a public protest seems an unnecessary abridgement of civil rights.

From the point-of-view of a disinterested traveller: assuming the demo is authorized by authorities, what would be the harm of containment/siting of the demo, allowing them visibility by those interested (and media coverage), while not disrupting travel, or posing any threat of violence. For example: the street entrance to Heathrow, but not in the terminal proper, or on the tarmac.

[Odin]

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,,2146693,00.html

So apparently, environmentalists have become terrorists... If they were planning to blow up planes I could understand it, however, they(the most radical ones, that is), are simply planning to disrupt air travel...

The Guardian has established that at least two climate change campaigners have been arrested recently at Heathrow by officers using terrorism powers. Cristina Fraser, a student, was stopped when cycling near the airport with a friend and then charged under section 58 of the Terrorism Act. This makes it an offence to make a record of something that could be used in an act of terrorism.

"I was arrested and held in a police cell for 30 hours. I was terrified. No one knew where I was. They knew I was not a terrorist," she said.

So this is a "new police state" how? I've been to London once and the party I was travelling with (a former brit) was busy attempting to point out to me the cameras recording our stroll.

And yes, environmentalists can be terrorists, so when the revlon factory goes up in smoke and everyone is bitching about the police not doing enough maybe the head official will say something like "well boys and girls this isnt Norway after all" and throw all of them in the clink for potential sedition.

[Tribesman]

Well they can't protest within 1 mile of Westminster or Number 10 Downing Street because of fascist laws, so where else have they got to go?

They can , in fact Mark Thomas has now entered the Guinness book of records for doing just that lots and lots , apparently it is the record for the largest number of different protest demonstrations a person has held in one day .
Though I am surprised they didn't give the record for the largest number of simultaneous demonstrations on different issues within a 1 mile radius , perhaps they will for the next big event of simultaneous individual protests he gets together in Westminster .

What is ironic about that law is that it was introduced to stop one man who has a very long running anti-war protest outside Parliament , but due to the way the law is written it doesn't effect him because his ongoing protest predates the legislation and is exempt:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Crazed Rabbit]

So a bunch of people want to illegally disrupt operations around an airport big terrorist target) and thereby greatly stretch police power from where its needed.

As an occasional plane traveler, I wouldn't really mind the disruptive ones thrown in prison a week or so where they can't massively delay travel.

I don't know about Britain, but here in the US certain envirowhackos have been terrorists for years, and are near the top of the FBI's domestic terrorism threat list.

CR

[Louis VI the Fat]

Oh dear. My head says this is indeed bad stuff and what about civil liberties.

My heart says I don't care and what about they all have baths and get jobs.Hah! I can tell you are nearing forty. :beam:

Come on, assuming these are just the usual harmless unwashed veganists that better the world by hanging out at airports and nuclear plants all day, this is a disgrace.

[Don Corleone]

All depends on what these jamokes were doing out at the airport. If they're just sitting around, smoking dope and waving signs saying "stop the pollution", then Louis and others are right, this is a violation of their right to peacably assemble. But if they're actually disrupting traffic and impeding the progress of others, CR is right. They're troublemakers and violating the rights of others and should get punished accordingly.

That being said, it is scary how easy it is to get on a watch list, or on the no-fly list or any of the other lists they have circulating around. I'm probably on one now for saying that. :oops:

[HoreTore]

All depends on what these jamokes were doing out at the airport. If they're just sitting around, smoking dope and waving signs saying "stop the pollution", then Louis and others are right, this is a violation of their right to peacably assemble. But if they're actually disrupting traffic and impeding the progress of others, CR is right. They're troublemakers and violating the rights of others and should get punished accordingly.

As with any demonstration, there are a couple of nutcases who want a more militant approach. However, this time all they are planning, is to call in fake bomb reports and such... Nothing that will hurt anyone, and how much it will affect travel is decided by how much hysteria the police will make out of it... It hardly seems like a good enough reason to strip search 1500 peaceful demonstrators. But then, they get in the way of business, I suppose...

Btw, they'll be hard-pressed to disrupt travel more than the current airport "security" measures do now...


That being said, it is scary how easy it is to get on a watch list, or on the no-fly list or any of the other lists they have circulating around. I'm probably on one now for saying that. :oops:

Very true. I don't really know whether I'll be allowed entry into the US, I guess I'll find out when the time comes...

[Ice]

Very true. I don't really know whether I'll be allowed entry into the US, I guess I'll find out when the time comes...

:inquisitive: Why wouldn't you be allowed entry?

[HoreTore]

:inquisitive: Why wouldn't you be allowed entry?

Well, firstly, I am a propaganda-spreading commie...




Oh, and I've been suspected, watched and investigated for terrorism.

[Don Corleone]

Well, the police don't have the luxury of treating any bomb-threat as fake, even when they're mostly certain it is. It requires a full response because if they turn out to be wrong, and the police didn't work to prevent it, the consequences would be tremendous. Not to mention, if we do as you suggest, and just let folks phone in fake-bomb-scares as a form of protest, what happens when some idiot gets the bright idea to start making real ones, then says "Hey, we warned you".

Threatening violence is a form of terrorism, granted not as extreme as enacting violence. Those involved should have been investegated. They're lucky they didn't have any charges filed against them.

[Slyspy]

Most people would have some sympathy with the environmentalists and NIMBYs who are protesting. Right up until the point that it disrupts their holiday.

Such a protest would be utterly counterproductive IMO.

I can already feel my sympathy draining away and I'm not even in a six hour queue because some idiot has chained himself to something vital.

Peaceful protest is one thing, but when it comes to direct action things can get a little bit blurry, especially around airports.

I'd much rather return to the protestor the right to protest outside 10 Downing Street (or a military camp) than have them piss around outside an airport. Especially if I need to use that airport.

[HoreTore]

Well, the police don't have the luxury of treating any bomb-threat as fake, even when they're mostly certain it is. It requires a full response because if they turn out to be wrong, and the police didn't work to prevent it, the consequences would be tremendous. Not to mention, if we do as you suggest, and just let folks phone in fake-bomb-scares as a form of protest, what happens when some idiot gets the bright idea to start making real ones, then says "Hey, we warned you".

How can random searches be an effective countermeasure against fake bomb calls...? What are you searching for, cell phones? I've never said "hey, let's do nothing", but how on earth can random searches(or any searches) prevent fake bomb calls? Sure, investigate the bomb reports if they come. But remember that there are 2 ways of doing that:

1. Keep it quiet, evacuate the area in question quietly and effectively with an emphasis on calming people so that it goes quickly, search the area and if nothing is found, it's business as usual
2. Run all around the airport screaming "IT'S GONNA BLOW", empty the airport, send in search teams, and then keep the airport locked and guarded for a day or so. Oh, and arrest every protester around the airport and bill them for the financial loss.


Those involved should have been investegated. They're lucky they didn't have any charges filed against them.

Well, that might be because it hasn't started yet...

[Louis VI the Fat]

All depends on what these jamokes were doing out at the airport. If they're just sitting around, smoking dope and waving signs saying "stop the pollution", then Louis and others are right, this is a violation of their right to peacably assemble. But if they're actually disrupting traffic and impeding the progress of others, CR is right. They're troublemakers and violating the rights of others and should get punished accordingly.I hear what you are saying, or CR, but the point is that these people are climate protesters. If they disrupt air traffic, they should be arrested and tried for disrupting traffic - not for terrorism. If they protest by unlawful means, they should be prosecuted for breaching the laws they broke, not for terrorism.

The rationale for the police is this: 'Should individuals or small groups seek to take action outside of lawful protest they will be dealt with robustly using terrorism powers. This is because the presence of large numbers of protesters at or near the airport will reduce our ability to proactively counter the terrorist act'.

This is rubbish. If I steal some chewing gum, I am according to this logic using up precious judicial and police resources that could've been used to counter terrorism.
Anti-terror laws are abused in this case. The police are well out of line here, doing what civil liberty groups have been arguing: that anti-terrorist laws give too much power to authorities, too much unchecked power, and that it will lead to improper abuse of this power. Give authorities a finger and they'll take your hand.

I don't necessarily agree with the protesters cause, I may not even disagree with tough anti-terror laws itself, but I do object the improper and wanton use of the tremendous power anti-terror laws give the police.

So I say we try the police for terrorism: their abuse of anti-terror laws in this way will undermine public support for anti-terror laws, thereby aiding terrorists in the long run. :smash:

[Crazed Rabbit]

I do agree, Louis, that these people should be prosecuted for disrupting air travel. However, if they do what Horetore says they are going to do - call in fake bomb threats, that's far beyond chaining themselves together to block traffic or something. That is terrorism - the use of fear to promote political goals.*



However, this time all they are planning, is to call in fake bomb reports and such... Nothing that will hurt anyone, and how much it will affect travel is decided by how much hysteria the police will make out of it... It hardly seems like a good enough reason to strip search 1500 peaceful demonstrators. But then, they get in the way of business, I suppose...

No bomb report, especially in this time, can be treated as fake, and if that is what these people are planning on doing, then my opinion of them went from annoyance to they are despicable scumbags.

Crazed Rabbit

*Necessary disclaimer for whiners: This is not a thorough definition, should not be treated as such, nor used for debate, just a short quick one to get the point across.

[Louis VI the Fat]

No bomb report, especially in this time, can be treated as fake, and if that is what these people are planning on doing, then my opinion of them went from annoyance to they are despicable scumbags.Yes, you are quite right and you expressed my feelings about it very eloquently.
Also, now that I think about it a bit more, it suddenly occurs to me that these climate protesters are dealing with airports, and with public transport in the UK. :idea2:
(Yes, I'm a bit slow)


Both of which warrant close monitoring, a nervous police force and some extended power to the authorities.

Gah! The trying times we live in! :shame:

[HoreTore]

Both of which warrant close monitoring, a nervous police force and some extended power to the authorities.

Gah! The trying times we live in! :shame:

True. But not without reason. You simply can't have a world where you can be arrested for "looking suspicious". Or, actually you can, but that would be a police state... Do we really want that?

[KukriKhan]

Why not just assign them designated areas for protest, that won't interfere with airport ops, or their right to protest?

https://jimcee.homestead.com/protestHeathrow.JPG

Throw a few MI5 guys in there amongst them to mill about looking for trouble-makers. Let 'em have bullhorns and signs and all. Let the media cover it. Everybody happy (except maybe the anti-enviro's).

[Crazed Rabbit]

True. But not without reason. You simply can't have a world where you can be arrested for "looking suspicious". Or, actually you can, but that would be a police state... Do we really want that?

Saying they plan on calling in bomb threats and doing other illegal activities sounds like reason enough.

CR

[HoreTore]

Saying they plan on calling in bomb threats and doing other illegal activities sounds like reason enough.

CR

For random searches? Pray tell, what would these searches accomplish?

[Louis VI the Fat]

True. But not without reason. You simply can't have a world where you can be arrested for "looking suspicious". Or, actually you can, but that would be a police state... Do we really want that?I agree with that, totally. It just suddenly occured to me that they are protesting at an airport, and that that does add additional complications and responsibilities for both the climate protesters and those monitoring them.

They should all listen to Kukri, the overlord of the .Org and the entire world beyond. :2thumbsup:

[Crazed Rabbit]

For random searches? Pray tell, what would these searches accomplish?

Yes, of those attending the protest. They'd make sure nobody is going to harm travelers or cause illegal disruptions. You can't honestly say ' we're going to call in fake bomb threats' and expect the police to let you get close to an airport to purposely disrupt it.

Crazed Rabbit

[HoreTore]

Yes, of those attending the protest. They'd make sure nobody is going to harm travelers or cause illegal disruptions. You can't honestly say ' we're going to call in fake bomb threats' and expect the police to let you get close to an airport to purposely disrupt it.

Crazed Rabbit

You'll have to explain that one. How does going through someone's stuff prevent him from making a fake bomb call...?

You'd have to confiscate every cell phone to do that. And cut the wires on every phone in the area. Oh, and shut down all transportation so that the protesters are stuck and can't reach a phone... But wasn't that what the protesters were planning?

[Papewaio]

Unfortunately, I work for money, as well as love, and I don't take payment in tofu. :laugh4:

But if they can't contact a lawyer they will find it very hard to pay you in any currency... so you might be losing income.

[Tribesman]

Well the protesters are claiming that BAA madep the bomb threats thing after failing to get the injunction against the protest .:inquisitive:
Meanwhile their direct action has involved chaining themselves to airport gates at two private airfields .

[Crazed Rabbit]

You'll have to explain that one. How does going through someone's stuff prevent him from making a fake bomb call...?

It prevents them from having bombs or bomb making supplies.

These despicable and cowardly threats can not be treated or blown off as fakes.

Crazed Rabbit

[Sigurd]

If they're just sitting around, smoking dope and waving signs saying "stop the pollution", :laugh4:

[Tribesman]

Well there was this question.....

You'll have to explain that one. How does going through someone's stuff prevent him from making a fake bomb call...?
And this reply.....

It prevents them from having bombs or bomb making supplies
....certainly isn't an answer to the question is it .:thumbsdown:

[HoreTore]

Well there was this question.....

And this reply.....

....certainly isn't an answer to the question is it .:thumbsdown:

Quite true.

Random searches in this case won't have any effect apart from terrorizing the protesters. It won't stop any bombs, as there wont be any. It does absolutely nothing to prevent people making fake bomb calls and shutting down air travel at all. In fact, everybody but the ones who are planning to make such calls lose; the police/state because their resources could be better spent elsewhere, the protesters because they'll have to endure random searches and Joe Traveler, because the fake bomb call will still ruin his holiday, and the cops did nothing to prevent it.

[barocca]

You'll have to explain that one. How does going through someone's stuff prevent him from making a fake bomb call...?
police can be strange
very strange...

i was once Pulled Over while driving and then searched under the accusation of using a public phone booth to make menacing threats,

apparently my car looked like the kind of car that would be driven by a person with the kind of voice as described to the police officers by the victim of the phone calls...:elephant:

[HoreTore]

police can be strange
very strange...

i was once Pulled Over while driving and then searched under the accusation of using a public phone booth to make menacing threats,

apparently my car looked like the kind of car that would be driven by a person with the kind of voice as described to the police officers by the victim of the phone calls...:elephant:

Profiling gone bad.... :inquisitive:

[Tribesman]

So now, this fake bomb storyish thing.

The source of this story appears to be an article in the Evening Standard , based on interviews with a bunch of people calling themselves the "Elders" , apparently they are the leaders of the protest at the airport , though the funny thing is that the protesters say they have never heard of them .
Curious eh ?

Whats even stranger is that the reporter whos name was put on the piece is saying he was not involved in the story .
Very strange indeed .

Could it be that people getting worked up and justifying the proposed police actions over this "threat" of fake bombs are defending something that doesn't exist ?:inquisitive:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Quite true.

How many times must I repeat that no bomb threats can be treated as fake?

Now, if that story is fake, then police actions would depend on what knowledge they have of what protesters are planning to do.



Random searches in this case won't have any effect apart from terrorizing the protesters.

Oh, heaven forbid we inconvenience someone who's sole purpose is disrupting travel and plans for anyone in that airport.

CR

[Tribesman]

How many times must I repeat that no bomb threats can be treated as fake?

Even non-exisstant ones:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:


Oh, heaven forbid we inconvenience someone who's sole purpose is disrupting travel and plans for anyone in that airport.



Rabbit do you know what this protest is about and who is involved ?
Hmmmmmmmm.......Nope :oops:

Whodathunk that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds or the Woodland Trust had the sole purpose of disrupting peoples travel plans .

Oh well I suppose the residents commitees might have that sole purpose , what with large numbers of the residents working at the airport and all that , and you know how some crap Heathrow staff are:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Now come to think of it , if the Spanish company that applied for the injunction against the protest had got it how many millions of peoples travel would have been disrupted ?
Since the planned injuntion was an actual event not a made up news story shouldn't the police use the anti terror laws against BAA to inconvenience them instead .:idea2:

[HoreTore]

How many times must I repeat that no bomb threats can be treated as fake?

That's all fine and dandy. But unfortunately, completely irrelevant. The mission for the police here, is to prevent anything disturbing air travel. That's why they are putting all those police officers on the airport. Now, how should they do that?


Oh, heaven forbid we inconvenience someone who's sole purpose is disrupting travel and plans for anyone in that airport.

The protest organizers aren't planning to disrupt anything. Their object is, like any protest, to voice their displeasure and make people aware of that fact. Some fringe loonies, which you're bound to have anywhere 1500 people are assembled, are planning more militant action. You simply cannot treat 1500 lawful citizens as potential criminals. Or, actually you can, but that's a sign of a police state. Enjoy. ~:)

[Crazed Rabbit]

So you're saying all sporting events in the US are 'police states' because sometimes they'll pat down everyone who comes in? Or that banning guns - treating citizens as potential criminals - is a sign of a police state?

Are these 1500 protesters you describe as lawful the same ones who have pledged 'direct action'?


Even non-exisstant ones

Gee, who likes to question others reading comprehension skills all the time? Now, let's see what I wrote, and what you only quoted only part of:


How many times must I repeat that no bomb threats can be treated as fake?

Now, if that story is fake, then police actions would depend on what knowledge they have of what protesters are planning to do.

Look it over a few times, to let the comprehension gradually sink in.

CR

[HoreTore]

So you're saying all sporting events in the US are 'police states' because sometimes they'll pat down everyone who comes in? Or that banning guns - treating citizens as potential criminals - is a sign of a police state?

Neither sporting events nor owning a gun is a political statement. The latter could be, but ONLY in a rebellion. A political protest is, however. So the cases are not very similar. The signs of a police state is bullying political opposition. Bullying people arguing against the current regime falls into that category...


Are these 1500 protesters you describe as lawful the same ones who have pledged 'direct action'?

No, the once pledging direct actions are just some fringe groups. The rest wants it to be a normal demonstration.

But here's a question for you; how should the police prevent people disrupting travel by making fake bomb calls?

[Tribesman]

Look it over a few times, to let the comprehension gradually sink in.

Nope since you are completely wrong .
Look it over ....
Now, if that story is fake, then police actions would depend on what knowledge they have of what protesters are planning to do.
These are blanket applications of anti-terror law that are widely applied to many protests (or even meetings)regardless of police knowledge about what people plan to do , the fake bomb hoax story is a made up peice of crap that a very disreputable publication printed to justify the police measures to a gullible public .
Think about it , under these laws a protest is one person , a meeting is two people , it can be applied to just about anyone anywhere in Britain at all times , if that isn't tending towards a police state then I don't know what is .

Terrorism laws are for dealing with terrorists , not for whatever whim the state wants to apply them to .

So in summary . The measures exist and are applied without cause so you are attempting to justify the unjustifiable Rabbit .
The normal public order laws would have been sufficient .



But here's a question for you; how should the police prevent people disrupting travel by making fake bomb calls?
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
You really are onto a winner there Hore:2thumbsup:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Neither sporting events nor owning a gun is a political statement.The latter could be, but ONLY in a rebellion.

You are rather wrong, I'm afraid; owning a gun can be very political.


A political protest is, however. So the cases are not very similar. The signs of a police state is bullying political opposition. Bullying people arguing against the current regime falls into that category...

So applying the same measures to two different gatherings of people is a police state? That makes no sense. Are you trying to say that political gatherings can never have their members searched?


No, the once pledging direct actions are just some fringe groups. The rest wants it to be a normal demonstration.

Are these fringe groups going to be wearing labels saying 'I'm a fringe nut, search me and no one else'?


But here's a question for you; how should the police prevent people disrupting travel by making fake bomb calls?

By promising that they will trace and catch anyone who makes such a call, and that they'll spend five years in prison - no parole or probation before that.


The measures exist and are applied without cause so you are attempting to justify the unjustifiable Rabbit .

Wrong again. What I said:

I do agree, Louis, that these people should be prosecuted for disrupting air travel.

Unless you think searching some people at a large gathering is unjustifiable.

CR

[Tribesman]

Wrong again. What I said:

No Rabbit ,what you said is completely wrong , the terrorist laws are applied to anything they want to , it has nothing to do with "police knowledge" it is a blanket application of anti terrorist laws to something that has nothing to do with terrorism .


So applying the same measures to two different gatherings of people is a police state? That makes no sense. Are you trying to say that political gatherings can never have their members searched?
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
It isn't applying the same measures , it is absolutely nothing like applying the same measures:dizzy2: Its 43 & 44 isn't it


Are these fringe groups going to be wearing labels saying 'I'm a fringe nut, search me and no one else'?
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: absolutely clueless .
The fringe groups are identified and monitored there is an injunction out against them going anywhere near the airport , that is working on "police knowledge" .:idea2:
That does not require the application of terrorism laws does it , that requires section 1 and section 60 .

Now then , just to wonder how little you know about the issue you are writing about and since you cannot tell the difference between things like public order , criminal justice , serious crime and ....errrrr.....terrorism .
A simple question .
Since BAA has got the injunction banning the lunatic fringe from anywhere near the airport , how many millions of people did it originally seek to ban under the injunction it first applied for ?

[Crazed Rabbit]

No Rabbit ,what you said is completely wrong , the terrorist laws are applied to anything they want to , it has nothing to do with "police knowledge" it is a blanket application of anti terrorist laws to something that has nothing to do with terrorism .

So what? My point was that I don't support those measures. :dizzy2:
You're confusing what I said I support with what the police are doing. :oops: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:


It isn't applying the same measures , it is absolutely nothing like applying the same measures

Right... :laugh4: :laugh4:


The fringe groups are identified and monitored there is an injunction out against them going anywhere near the airport , that is working on "police knowledge"

Well thank goodness a fringe nut would never think of violating a piece of paper.
Oh, wait, did you think we were on a make believe world where lunatics never violate injunctions? Oh, poor tribesy. :no: Have a lollipop to feel better. :2thumbsup:


That does not require the application of terrorism laws does it ,

I said earlier it only applied if people were making bomb threats. If they aren't, then it doesn't.

Simple really. :yes: :yes:

CR

[Tribesman]

So what? My point was that I don't support those measures.
Thats funny , you equated them with searching people going to a football match .
So you do agree that the unneeded application of draconian laws such as the British are doing is indicative of a police state .


Well thank goodness a fringe nut would never think of violating a piece of paper.

When they do then there are laws to deal with it , it doesn't require the use of anti terrorism laws to make an arrest for a violation of a court order .

[KukriKhan]

Sky News (http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,70131-1280422,00.html) timeline of events related to this airport protest, for those who'd like to catch up.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Thats funny , you equated them with searching people going to a football match .

No, I equated searching people at a football match with searching people at the climate change camp. :yes: :yes:


So you do agree that the unneeded application of draconian laws such as the British are doing is indicative of a police state .

It'd be draconian if they were throwing protesters in jail for years - but I'd say it is a sign of a police state.



When they do then there are laws to deal with it , it doesn't require the use of anti terrorism laws to make an arrest for a violation of a court order .

I never said it did require anti-terrorism laws. :yes: :yes:

Crazed Rabbit

[Tribesman]

No, I equated searching people at a football match with searching people at the climate change camp.
Since searching people under public order laws and searching people under anti-terrorist laws is comletely different then how could they possibly be equated :dizzy2: (apart from them both involving searches)

Anyway heres a funny one . Todays childrens march organised by the residents commitee was delayed when the police tried to intervene using section 44 to stop it (riot police of course as children can be quite threatnening ). Children were stopped from carrying out an authourised protest in their own village(which will not exist for much longer) under anti-terrorism legislation . ******* crazy .
Luckily they had their local MP on the protest to intervene and he persuaded the police to let them continue .

Anyhow , has any one watched any of the youtube footage ?
The clowns with the bloke in a bra in a wheelie bin is quite funny .
The one from the morning of the 14th as in Kukris link is hilarious , the police were breaking the law under the section 6 notices so couldn't do a thing about it .

[Crazed Rabbit]

Since searching people under public order laws and searching people under anti-terrorist laws is comletely different then how could they possibly be equated :dizzy2: (apart from them both involving searches)

I never said I supported searching them under the anti-terrorist laws. :book:


Anyway heres a funny one .

Aww, your attempt at debating didn't turn out to well, did it? :no:

Crazed Rabbit

[Axeknight]

Isn't Heathrow technically private land? Why not round the protesters up under Trespassing laws? Surely in that case they're not authorised to be on the grounds outside the Terminal buildings, so whether they have a legal right to protest or not becomes a non-issue.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Here's a review of the day by the BBC, with a map:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6953518.stm

CR

[Papewaio]

Anyway heres a funny one . Todays childrens march organised by the residents commitee was delayed when the police tried to intervene using section 44 to stop it (riot police of course as children can be quite threatnening ). Children were stopped from carrying out an authourised protest in their own village(which will not exist for much longer) under anti-terrorism legislation . ******* crazy .
Luckily they had their local MP on the protest to intervene and he persuaded the police to let them continue .


Is there any way these police can be taken to court for abuse of power? Surely there should be safeguards against this kind of tripe.