One has to wonder exactly how well the Metropolitan Police are briefing their officers who patrol the Designated Area around Parliament Square, under the Serious Organised Crimeand Police Act 2005. Either thery are poorly trained or they are conducting a campaign of harassment.
Todays reports about the arrest and subsequent release of Brian Hawand Barbara Tucker, at the long running, and still perfectly legal anti-war protest in Parliament Square, seems to be a repeat of the very similar incident reported by the
BBC on 9th December 2005
Brian Haw, is, by virtue of the High Court ruling in his favour, which exposed the poor draughting of the hurried and improperly scrutinised SOCPA legislation, is currently exempt from its provisions regarding "unauthorised demonstrations", by virue of his protest having started before the Act came into force.
This means that none of the"Conditions" which can be applied arbitarily (and change at a whim by athe senior police officer on the spot), apply either e.g. restrictions on banners or posters etc.
Provided that there is no obstruction to the pavement (and there is plenty of room for the few passers by in the centre of Parliament Square, as established in previous court cases in favour of Brian Haw) there is no legal power for the police to try to confiscate a banner.
It is no wonder that Brian Haw has been released without charge, given that he was protesting to the police that what they were attempting to do was actually illegal.
Barbara Tucker, who was also arrested with him, is a long time supporter and friend of Brian's and appears to be under particular legal harassment by the power of the state.
She was the first person to be arrested and convicted of holding an unuthorised demonstration
It appears that she was arrested again on the same excuse i.e. that she was "suspected of holding an unuthorised demonstration".
How does one peaceful middle aged mother, on her own constitute any sort of security threat or possible disruption to the workings of Parliament ?
It is very frightening to see the power of the Labour government's police state bureaucracy, being used to try to crush single individuals.
Can anyone tell me why registering a protest beforehand is such a bad thing.
I am thinking of attending NAMING THE DEAD: MASS CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE AGAINST THE OCCUPATION OF IRAQ on Sunday 2nd April 2006.
@ Simon - there is nothing at all wrong with notifying the Police etc. ahead of a major protest or demonstration if you choose to.
If it is likely to be of such a size that it will disrupt the flow of traffic, you are already obliged to do so, for obvious safety and road traffic management reasons, under other existing legislation.
What is different with the Designated Area around Parliament Square is that it has nothing whatsoever to do with road traffic or large crowd safety. It has nothing to do with being a proper Security Cordon either - on the one hand the Designated Area stretches over to the South Bank of the River Thames, yet at the same time, the boundary does not include St James' Park, which is literally a stone's throw from Downing Street. It has nothing to do with any attempts to impede MPs from having access to parliament in order to vote, that is also already covered by other laws.
Since the term "demonstration" in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 section 132 to 138 is not defined it could mean anything, in the opinion of a police officer.
Simply wearing a t-shirt or badge or wristband with a "political slogan" on it can be construed as "holding an unauthorised demonstration".
Remember you cannot simply tell the Police verbally face to face, or via email or via fax, or over the phone (which is what Milan Rai dis when he and Maya Evans got arrested for the reading the names of the British casualties in Iraq ceremony by the Cenotaph in Whitehall in October 2005) that you intend to "demonstrate" it must be done in writing, "at least 6 clear days" beforehand, or in exceptional circumstances "at least 24 hours" beforehand.
The standard Police form which they will try to get you to fill in demands your name and address and will be retained for at least 7 years.
If you do apply for prior permission in this way, then it must be granted, but arbitrary conditions can be imposed on your "demonstration" e.g. restricting the number of people, the time and exact location with the Designated Area, details of any banners, leaflets etc.
These arbitrary conditions can be added to or varied, at the whim of the senior Police Officer on the spot. He could decide to only allow you to enter the Designated Area by hopping on one foot or by crawling on all fours if he chose to. and it would be a criminal offence to disobey him.
Loudspeakers are totally banned.
There is no minimum period e.g. half an hour, for a demonstration before it falls under the SOCPA Designated Area powers.
Essentially, even if you have "permission" to "demonstrate", it is meaninglessess, as you can be arrested and charged and convicted for breaking any of the arbitrary "conditions"
The "public areas" within the Designated Area are not just the streets and pavements, but
This covers the public lobby and visitors areas of the Palace of Westminster, where you may very well be legaly lobbying your MP, in the traditional way, and also the places of worship such as Westminster Abbey or Methodist Central Hall, and every bar, restaurant theatre and cinema and also Horse Guards Parade for the Trooping the Colour Ceremony etc. and the Tube stations (at ground level, butnot, apprently, the Tube trains running under the Designated Area).
All of this is an infringement of our fundamental human rights to free assembly and free speech, and possibly also to freedom of religion.
Thanks for the comprehensive reply.
I watched the arrest of Milan Rai, where the officer makes the point that with freedom also comes responsibility. I just didn't think that it was unreasonable to inform the police (even in writing) as they have the job of co-ordinating these events.
I sound as though this arbitrary rule-changing is designed to allow the police to adapt if necessary. Again, if exercised properly, this doesn't seem unreasonable.
It all comes down to intent. If this is just about properly organising our spaces to ensure the maximum safety for the participants, then that might be acceptable. However, if it's about establishing a framework to brush away any unwanted protest then it should be opposed.
I am still unsure if this is a completely flawed piece of legislation or if there is some common sense in all of us at least registering in a common calendar what demos we will be staging.
@ Simon -
Milan Rai had already notified the Police by phone about his and Maya Evans' ceremony, it was not a surprise to them, and, given the vast amount of CCTV surveillance in Whitehall, it should not have been a surprise even if he had not.
The SOCPA law is very badly draughted - remember that a High Court Judicial Review exempted Brian Haw's long running protest, because he could never apply for permission before the commencement of his ongoing protest - the could not be expected to travel backwards in time i.e. a complete cock up by the Home Office.
The SOCPA law did not get proper detailed Parliamentary scrutiny, as it was one of the last Bills to get rushed through "on the nod" in the undemocratic backroom deal of the "wash up" process , just before Parliament was dissolved before the General Election. Being mostly concerned with the establishment of the new Serious Organised Crime Agency, the main Opposition "improvement" efforts were directed to excising the controversial "incitement to religous hatred" clauses, which the Government had then to bring forward as a separate Bill.
Why should so much arbitrary power to demand prior written permission and to impose conditions which curtail peaceful political or religous activity within the very area which is the traditional focus for demonstrations and protes, be forced onto our supposedly non-political Police ?
This inevitably associates the Metropolitan Police with the mistrust or hatred of the current or future Government, something which they are supposed to be insulated from, by serving the people of London and the Crown directly, as a crime fighting force, and not as a means of crushing political or religous dissent.
The people who have been arrested and convicted so far have all been anti-Iraq war pacifists, mostly with strong religous beliefs, but the law applies to every other shade of opinion and belief as well.
Remember that if any demonstrations or protests are violent or have the potential for violence, there are lots of other existing Police powers which already come into play.
There is no justification for the Designated Area being so huge. The extent of the Designated Area can be made, by Order of the Home Secretary to cover an area of up to 1 kilometer from the nearest point in Parliament Square.
The current Statutory Instrument 2005 No. 1537 - The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (Designated Area) Order 2005 does not push the boundary to this maximum possible extent, but it does literally just skirt around the London Eye ferris wheel, the Lambeth Palace residence of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Security Service MI5 headquarters, the new Home Office
buildings, New Scotland Yard Metropolitan Police headquarters, Whitehall and Downing Street.
If it was really intended to deal with security threats or access problems which might impede the workings of Parliament, as claimed, then it would only need to cover the pavements directly outside the Palace of Westminster, and across the road on the Westminster Abbey side, and, the bit of pavement in the centre of parliament Square directly opposite the Carriage Gate entrance, where Brian Haw has his peace camp pitch and no more.
Even this Order is badly draughted, as it is unclear about the exact extent of the Designated Area boundary, especially on streets which it crosses at right angles:
e.g. is all of the unbroken pavement "adjoining"ng Birdcage Walk along St James' Park included, nearly as far as Buckingham Palace ?
This is a bad law which infringes our fundamental human rights, and politicises the Metropolitan Police, without any proper security justification, and it should be repealed.
Well that IS a comprehensive answer!
Thank you for your insights. I can see now why this is an important issue to tackle.
The point that the Police are not being used to catch criminals, but as the political enforcement for government is a very poignant one.
Since looking into this matter I have found a good article in the Guardian.
A law the Stasi would have loved
The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act is the most pernicious piece of legislation yet introduced by this government
Read it here
My next comment may be by proxy. Does wormwood scrubs have internet access?
@ Simon - you are unlikely to end up in prison, unless you refuse to pay any fines imposed on you, but if you are arrested, you will have your fingerprints taken, be photographed and have your DNA sampled, all of which will be retained indefinately even if you are never charged or the charges are dropped and even if you are aquitted in court.
Incredibly, some internet access is apparently allowed in prisons - the murderer of the banker John Monckton is allegeded to have done research on high value jewellery and on rich potential victims etc. partly via the internet whilst still serving a prison sentence for attemptred murder.
Please send a letter to your Member of Parliament on how you feel about this SOCPA Designated Area issue e.g. by using the WriteToThem website.
Thanks for all your help. This has been the most useful overview I have read so far.