Criminalisation of protest in Nottingham
Published:
December 19, 2011 15:28
by Nottingham Indymedia + Nottingham Defence Campaign |
Neighbourhoods: bridewell nottingham
Published by group:
Notts Indymedia
On Saturday December 17th, Notts Uncut participated in the UK Uncut “Christmas Special,” visiting the usual tax dodging companies. Notts Police took an unusually confrontational attitude asking for people’s details, imposing conditions on the protest. Once person was arrested after she asked for clarification of the instructions, while another was arrested after remonstrating with the police about the initial arrest. A third arrest took place that evening for allegedly refusing to leave Bridewell Police Station where supporters were waiting for the arrestees.
On the newswire: Arrests at Uncut demo: Topshop & Bridewell Pol Stn | Criminalisation of protest in Notts | Notts Uncut Arrests | 2 Arrested at Uncut demo: Topshop, Nottingham
Almost as soon as demonstrators arrived at the meeting point outside Boots, police were confrontational, asking people for their names, addresses and dates of birth (which they are not obliged to give).
The police then sought to impose conditions on the protest under Section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986. Protesters were told that they could not go within 20 yards of specified stores. When one demonstrator, unfamiliar with imperial measurements asked what this was in metric she was arrested for refusing to comply with the s.14 directions.
Her husband then tried to remonstrate with the police and was arrested under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. He was then manhandled into the back of a police van.
A call-out was made for supporters to go to Bridewell Police Station where they were taken. A local vicar and the 11 year old son of the arrestees were denied entry to enquire about their wellbeing.
Some supporters stayed at the police station to wait for the arrestees, while others went back to continue protesting. Additional supporters turned up throughout the afternoon and early-evening response to the call-out.
The first arrestee was released shortly after 4pm, but there was an extended delay before the second was let out. The group went into the reception (which they were no longer prevented from doing) to warm up while they waited.
After some time Inspector D. Sharp appeared with a number of other officers and demanded that people leave. He alleged that they were "intimidating" people going about their lawful business (presumably implying that waiting in a reception does not constitute "lawful business").
Sharp was asked by a number of people present what the legal basis of his demands was, however he refused to give one and arrested one of the supporters.
All of the protesters had been released by about 9pm. The two arrested at the protest have been bailed to return in the new year, but not charged. Their bail conditions include legally dubious restrictions on their right to protest.
This is a major escalation of Nottinghamshire Police's handling of protesters. Notts Uncut demonstrations have become a semi-regular occurence in Nottingham. Traditionally police locally have had a very hands-off approach to the protest.
The attempt to criminalise solidarity, arresting those waiting for their friends, is a particularly worrying development.
The protest was coordinated nationally with others, as part of the UK Uncut "Christmas Special" timed to coincide with the busiest shopping day of the year. There were also six arrests in London, where Topshop was protected by riot police.
Regular Uncut participants noted that the police officers assigned to the protest did not include any of the familiar faces from previous demonstrations.
It is possible, that this ridiculously heavy-handed response was a one-off, driven centrally. However, Saturday's policing should viewed in the context of the arrest of the 'Atos Two', which catalysed the formation of the Nottingham Defence Campaign. In that case, one of the arresting officers admitted, "There's been too much of this sort of thing going on and we've been told to crackdown."
We should not be surprised by any of this. We live in a class society in which the police's primary function is, and always has been, to protect the interests of the bosses. As the imposition of "austerity" heightens class conflict, we can only expect this bias to become more explicit.
In short, we need to assume Saturday's policing is typical of what we can expect Nottinghamshire Police in the future and plan accordingly. To this end Nottingham Defence Campaign, along with others, will be organising a meeting early in the new year to plan a coordinated response.
Links:
Comments
Isn't it time you got back to work, officer?
Published: December 23, 2011 11:12
by
-
"protest is a protected mechanism in the UK."
*Coughs* Ian Tomlinson? Blair Peach? Sean Kirtley? Plastic bullets? Water cannon? Mark Kennedy? Don't make me laugh.
"if you play by the rules; you will be allowed to go about your activity un-molested."
That's quite hard when the rules keep changing in the state's favour. The problem is that if you agree to the police's conditions of not going anywhere near your intended target, limiting the numbers of people who are allowed to go, not using megaphones, etc then you have no protest at all.
If you play by the rules, it isn't a protest.
"i can extrapolate instantly that the persons referred to who attempted to "clarify" the rulings undoubtedly did so to the point where it became intentionally disruptive"
You're a mind reader then are you? Or just prejudiced?
"i dont think the Police are really going to concern themselves too much with converting imperial into metric for people in the streets... do you?"
Why not? Perhaps it's because they didn't have any intention of making people understand the arbitrary restrictions placed on this protest and just wanted to arrest people as a deterrent to others?
"names, addresses and dates of birth ARE obliged to be given"
No they're not.
"if you're so sure you're not doing something wrong; why not give it up. the detals will only be used if you are considered to be acting outside the law."
Because you don't have to and we all know that the police add any personal details to their extensive databases of intelligence on protesters. The police have no right to demand these things. By your own logic they are not 'playing by the rules' when they do this. Why do you always side with the state and never with the people?
"if a person is "remonstrating" with Police; i feel perfectly happy that they were "manhandled" back to a van. you and a lot of people won't appreciate that this is done for the officers' safety."
What about the safety of the protester? Or don't you care about him?
"they aren't paid to be on the recieving end of any voilence"
Yes they are. Police officers are paid a considerable amount more money than similar frontline service providers in other sectors, partly as danger money and partly as bribery to keep them on the state's side.
"remember they could recieve much worse over much less in other countries, but the reason for such response is that officers will meet opposition with reasonable force."
Is that why they shot that unarmed man in Tottenham and planted a gun on him then? Is that why they killed that paper seller who walked past a protest? Is that why they've killed so many people who were in custody? Is that why they used tasers in a public order situation at Dale Farm? Is that why they frequently baton charge and horse charge peaceful demonstrators? Is that why they are threatening us with water cannon and rubber bullets? Is that why they send undercover cops in to sexually traumatise people?
You haven't got a clue.
"i would conjecture that that the right to protest could be rescinded if people continue to push their luck. just my opinion, but i'd be all in favour."
Finally your true colours show through. You don't think anyone should be able to protest and that we should all be told what to do and be grateful. Some sick world you want to live in. Fortunately there are plenty of people who don't care what the rules are and will continue to protest in any way they can. The revolutions in the Arab world are just the start. The riots were just the start. You coppers should be shitting yourselves.
IT WOULD APPEAR
Published: December 24, 2011 01:13
by
RESIDENT OF NOTTINGHAM
...that you confuse protest with disorder
It would appear...
Published: December 24, 2011 09:39
by
@
...that you can't turn the caps lock off.
Who,s confused?..
Published: December 25, 2011 02:29
by
neilant
Protest (definition) - to speak strongly against or a strongly worded objection.... Until yet another new law is passed, or the current ones modified to suit the purpose or agenda of the authorities, the protest can be done in person....
Disorder (definition) - breach of the peace or the breaking of law & order.... Again, until yet another law is passed etc., asking a policeman a question doesnt qualify as disorder....
So I believe that, in this case, the only people who are confusing protest with disorder, are the police.. But they,re only following orders from their superiors/bosses of course, so the officers at the scene are not to blame..
mathematically challenged police?
Published: January 14, 2012 14:29
by
jane fae
In another much more light hearted piece, I wrote recently about metric and imperial measures. Amusingly, those of us over a certain age think one. Those under think the other.
My musing began when I found staff in my local supermarket simply unable to cope with requests in imperial measure.
So...very obviously, some folk DON'T do both. Which means it wasn't a fact question and I'd the police refused to convert...then they were either being thick or deliberately obstructive.
Janet
Latest articles feed
SO...
protest is a protected mechanism in the UK. as the protesters that have camped on the square have proved; if you play by the rules; you will be allowed to go about your activity un-molested.
i can extrapolate instantly that the persons referred to who attempted to "clarify" the rulings undoubtedly did so to the point where it became intentionally disruptive, and you obviously want to make this seem like it was innocent. not fooling me, and probably not fooling anyone.
i dont think the Police are really going to concern themselves too much with converting imperial into metric for people in the streets... do you?
names, addresses and dates of birth ARE obliged to be given, if considered to be in relation to an offence. if you're so sure you're not doing something wrong; why not give it up. the detals will only be used if you are considered to be acting outside the law.
if a person is "remonstrating" with Police; i feel perfectly happy that they were "manhandled" back to a van. you and a lot of people won't appreciate that this is done for the officers' safety. they aren't paid to be on the recieving end of any voilence, and aren't going to wait for it if they sense someone has potential for this.
remember they could recieve much worse over much less in other countries, but the reason for such response is that officers will meet opposition with reasonable force.
a police station is not intented to be for associates of anyone in custody to be able to stay.
i would conjecture that that the right to protest could be rescinded if people continue to push their luck. just my opinion, but i'd be all in favour.