Parliament Protest

Indymedia report that Brian Haw, the well known peace protestor who has been camped out in Parliament Square since 2nd June 2001 has been yet again arrested.

Brian Haw Arrested

Peter Marshall | 30.10.2009 23:28 | Anti-militarism | Iraq
Brian Haw was arrested around 7pm this evening - Friday 30 October 2009 - in Parliament Square.

Police tonight arrested peace protester Brian Haw who has been carrying out a permanent protest in Parliament Square opposite the Houses of Parliament since 2 June 2001, 3072 days ago. After a lengthy argument, Mr Haw, who now walks on crutches, was walked away by two officers, pushed still protesting into the back of a police van and driven away.

The arrest at around 7pm was witnessed by several of Brian's supporters in the square, one of whom filmed the event, as well as several photographers including myself who were present in the square for another protest.

This is not the first time that Brian Haw has been arrested, and throughout his protest he and his supporters have been subjected to considerable legal and illegal harassment by the police. The arresting officer is one against whom allegations have been made by the protesters of misconduct in previous incidents.

[...]

What are the Metropolitan Police playing at ?

Does this arrest of a political dissident have the sanction of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson, who claims to be less politicised than his NuLabour predecessor Sir Ian Blair ?

Or is it another case, like that of the introduction of armed police patrols without any local consultation, of middle ranking police commanders not telling their boss what they are up to ?

Remember , that despite their vague promises, this current Labour government has not repealed or modified their controversial Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 section 132 Designated Area around Parliament Square and far beyond, which curtails your rights to protest peacefully and your fundamental human rights to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.

The Labour Government has today published its long awaited

Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill

The Good News - the abhorrent and undemocratic requirement for Prior Written Authorisation by the Police and arbitrary Restrictions on small or spontaneous demonstrations, near Parliament seems to be on its way to being repealed.

Part 4

Public order

32 Demonstrations etc in the vicinity of Parliament

(1) Omit sections 132 to 138 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (c. 15) (which regulate demonstrations in the vicinity of Parliament).

Hurray !!

However, do not get too excited because:

(2) Schedule 4 (which inserts new powers into Part 2 of the Public Order Act 1986 (c. 64) etc) has effect.

This amendment to the Public Order Act 1986 is even longer and just as complicated as the SOCPA legislation it replaces.

It does not spell out any of the details, as it is enabling legislation, allowing for the creation of arbitrary laws via Statutory Instrument Orders, which can only be accepted or rejected by Parliament, and not amended in any way.

The main difference seems to be the "area around Parliament", defined as no more than 250 metres in a straight line from the nearest point in Parliament Square, rather than the still current Designated Area of up to 1 kilometre (the current Designated Area does not extend as far as that in all directions).

Unlike the current Designated Area, this smaller Area around Parliament would exclude the front entrance of the Metropolitan Police HQ at New Scotland Yard to the west, the MI5 Security Service Thames House building to the south, extend only across Westminster Bridge but no further than the former Country Hall to the east, but would still cover most of Whitehall to the north, including the Whitehall and Horseguards Road entrances to Downing Street and the Whitehall entrance to the Ministry of Defence, if the full 250 metres is designated.

See Google Maps / StreetView

Schedule 4 -- Amendment to Part 2 of the Public Order Act 1986 etc

Apparently there was a march from Trafalgar Square , "via Downing Street" (how, exactly ? - the gates are shut !) ) to New Scotland Yard today, i.e. right through the heart of the SOCPA Designated Area around Parliament Square, to protest about the violent policing of protests and demonstrations.

The left wing organisers, who appear to be drawn mostly from the manipulative Socialist Workers Party and Bob Crow's left wing RMT union, calling themselves United Campaign Against Police Violence seem to have a web blog, but there really has been almost no publicity about this event.

Even Indymedia UK do not seem to have any coverage of it, although there was a brief mention on Sky tv News.

The Palace of Westminster is also mostly empty today, a Saturday during the Whitsun Parliamentary recess, so the politicians and journalists of the "Westminster Village" will have ignored this demonstration, in favour of the "MPs expenses scandals"..

The issues they are nominally protesting e.g. "justice for those killed in police custody and for the right to protest" should really appeal to peaceful, democratic people across political party lines, but this protest seems to be a left wing / anarchist "closed shop",

This is a shame, because many other people are also furious and dissatisfied about the G20 demonstrations policing tactics, the death of Ian Tomlinson, the pre-event police surveillance and media hype about "planned violence".etc.whilst Prime Minister Gordon Brown tried, and failed, to convince people that he was somehow leading the international efforts to solve the world banking crisis, which he was personally partly responsible for.

The Times reports on the public relations disaster for the demonstrations and vigils in support of Tamils in Sri Lanka, which have been occupy Parliament Square on and off during the past few weeks:

From Times Online
May 19, 2009

Police hurt as UK Tamil protests turn violent

Emily Gosden

Twenty-five police officers were injured in the early hours of this morning and ten British Tamil protesters arrested as police attempted to break up a demonstration blocking the streets around Westminster.

The violent clashes took place hours after the Sri Lankan government announced victory over the Tamil Tiger rebels and the death of all the main Tiger leadership.

The clashes outside Parliament left three officers requiring hospital treatment, while five protesters were also taken to hospital and more treated at the scene, all for minor injuries.

The protesters were arrested for public order offences after refusing to move from the roads outside Parliament. Up to 5,000 protesters had broken out of the centre of Parliament Square at around 4pm yesterday and brought Westminster to a standstill. They staged a sit-down protest to call for international intervention in Sri Lanka, where thousands of civilians remain in internment camps at the end of the bloody civil war that has claimed 70,000 lives.

This morning around 30 protestors remained in Parliament Square, where they have had a continuous presence since April 6. A peaceful vigil and hunger strikes has now escalated into illegal roadblocks on four occasions.

[...]

It does not matter if the protestors were provoked by the Police actions or not, this outbreak of violence is a public relations disaster for the protestors' cause.

The weak Labour Government and the Foreign Office bureaucracy will now be able to discount and ignore any moral pressure they felt on them caused by the hitherto peaceful demonstrations, which have now all gone to waste.

The now "traditional" long running "Peace Camp" protestors permanently encamped in Parliament Square led by Brian Haw, has been swelled in recent weeks by Tamil demonstrators,protesting about the humanitarian crisis involving the thousands of trapped civilians in the Tamil Tigers versus Sri Lankan government combat zone.

What they really expect the British Government to actually do about this situation is unclear, in spite of the hunger strikes which some of them are now on.

The Police seem to have penned these protestors in on Parliament Square Gardens, with lots of barriers etc. and the annual London Marathon race does not seem to have been affected.

The largest Tamil demonstrations were when Parliament came back from Yet Another of their recesses at Easter, when the road between the Palace of Westminster and Westminster Abbey was blocked by thousands of protestors sitting down peacefully.

This demonstration was not an authorised one under SOCPA Designated Area but there seem to have been few arrests under that legislation.

The fact that Parliament continued business as normal, with no problems for MPs or Peers being able to attend, (they do, after all, have underground tunnel access to the building from Westminster Tube station and from Portcullis House) also shows that the "sessional orders" and indeed the SOCPA section 132-138 Designated Area is far too widely drawn, over far too large an area, to be justified on the grounds of protecting access to Parliament.

The Liberal Democrat Peer, Lord Tyler, has introduced a Private Members Bill into the House of Lords, which, amongst other things, seeks to stir up the moribund Government's promise (made by Gordon Brown in 2007) to repeal the controversial Designated Area around Parliament Square restrictions of freedom of assembly and speech, and peaceful protest, inflicted on us via sections 132 to 138 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005,

The wording of the first section is identical to the Government's own Draft Bill.

Demonstrations in the vicinity of Parliament

1 Repeal of sections 132 to 138 of Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005

(1) Omit sections 132 to 138 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (c. 15) (which regulate demonstrations in the vicinity of Parliament).

(2) In the Table in section 175(3) of that Act (transitional provision relating to offences), omit the entries relating to section 136.

(3) In paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 2 to the Noise and Statutory Nuisance Act 1993 (c. 40) (which is about consents for the operation of loudspeakers), omit "or of section 137(1) of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005".

(4) Omit paragraph 64 of Schedule 6 to the Serious Crime Act 2007 (c. 27)
.

Lord Tyler explains in this Lords of the Blog article: Wake up call

In tune with so much of what has been happening in London this week, I attempted on Tuesday to arouse some politicians from their complacency about the dire reputation of Parliament.

My Constitutional Renewal Bill, which received its First Reading then, seeks to put this whole issue back on the agenda. You may recall that, in his very first statement as Prime Minister, Gordon Brown set out proposals to "agree a new British constitutional settlement that entrusts more power to Parliament and the British people." Those brave intentions have long since been diluted, through a series of documents and even a draft Bill, but the need to revive them now is greater than ever. In the midst of this economic crisis, with the reputation of Parliament and politicians at a very low ebb, people may well feel completely disillusioned, disconnected and dangerously alienated. That is how extremist groups can flourish.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights, comprising of both Members of the House of Commons, and Peers from the House of Lords, has published another report Human Rights Joint Committee - Seventh Report - Demonstrating respect for rights? A human rights approach to policing protest,which has a Chapter entitled:

5 LEGAL REFORM: PROTEST AROUND PARLIAMENT

Unfortunately, the reports of this Committee are routinely ignored, or simply paid lip service to, by the current Labour government.

They intend to propose some amendments to legislation , to stimulate debate:

AMENDMENTS TO THE POLICING AND CRIME BILL

138. It is now four years since Parliament had the opportunity to debate the law on protest around Parliament, since which time the provisions passed in 2005 have been widely discredited. Debate on this issue now would ensure that the Government could hear and reflect on the views of both Houses while drawing up its own proposals and would encourage the Government to conclude its own consideration of the matter without undue delay.

139. We intend to table amendments on protest around Parliament to the Policing and Crime Bill in order to prompt debate in both Houses. The amendments we suggest below are essentially probing amendments, based on our recommendations, rather than a fully worked-out scheme for tackling the problems we have discussed. Crucially, we note that the onus is on the Government to bring forward the necessary reform which commands the support of the police, the parliamentary authorities and the local authorities.

Protest around Parliament: repeal of provisions in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005

To move the following clause:

"In the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill 2005 (c. 15), sections 132 to 138 are repealed."

Surely that should be "Act" rather than "Bill" ?

Imposing conditions on public assemblies: Parliament

To move the following clause:

"(1) The Public Order Act 1986 (c. 64) is amended as follows.

(2) At the end of section 14(1)(a) there is inserted ", if it takes place in the designated area or areas, it is a security risk, or".

(3) After section 14(1)(b) there is inserted the following paragraph:

"(c) it is taking place or will take place in the designated area or areas and will seriously impede, or be likely to seriously impede, access to the Houses of Parliament,".

(4) After section 14(2) there is inserted the following subsection:

"(2A) In subsection (1) "the designated area or areas" means the area or areas specified as such by the Secretary of State:


(a) by description, by reference to a map, or in any other way; and

(b) which lie within 300 metres of the perimeter of the Palace of Westminster or Portcullis House".

The forthcoming protest called by professional, amateur and political activist Photographers will highlight several of the Labour government's repressive policies, which afflict normal, law abiding people's rights and freedoms, without producing any tangible "security" benefit against terrorists or criminals.

Mass photography protest - 11 am Monday 16th February 2009, Metropolitan Police HQ, New Scotland Yard

Which of the various police powers will be used to harass and intimidate peaceful, lawful protestors and professional media photographers, outside of the Metropolitan Police Service HQ ?

The SOCPA section 132 to 138 Designated Area around Parliament Square ? (New Scotland Yard in Broadway is just within the Designated Area - see The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (Designated Area) Order 2005)

The Terrorism Act 2000 section 44 stop and search without reasonable cause ?

The new Terrorism Act 2000 section 58A "eliciting or attempting to elicit" or publishing or communicating "information" about a current or former police officer ?

N.B. New Scotland Yard is not a Prohibited Place, under the Official Secrets Act 1911.

A reminder that the wretched affront to our peaceful democratic rights of freedom of assembly and freedom of speech, the SOCPA Designated Area is still in force, and has not even been reduced in size (something which does not require a new Act of Parliament), even though the government has vaguely promised to repeal it.

House of Lords, Written Answers, Thursday, 15 January 2009

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2009-01-15a.183.0

Questions

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Spokesperson for the Home Office; Liberal Democrat):

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to repeal the provisions of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 that prevent demonstrations in Parliament Square without police permission; and, if so, when. [HL436]

Lord West of Spithead (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Security and Counter-terrorism), Home Office; Labour):

The Government announced their intention in March 2008 to repeal Sections 132 to 138 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. These provisions were included in the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill last Session.

I can assure the noble Baroness that we remain strongly committed to constitutional renewal and our aim is to bring a Bill forward in the spring, subject to the parliamentary timetable.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2009-01-15a.183.3

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Spokesperson for the Home Office; Liberal Democrat):

To ask Her Majesty's Government how many people have been detained and how many fines have been issued as a result of demonstrations that contravened the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. [HL438]

Lord West of Spithead (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Security and Counter-terrorism), Home Office; Labour):

Data showing the number of persons given a custodial sentence and fined for selected offences under the 2005 Serious Organised Crime and Police Act from 2005 to 2007 (the latest available) are in the attached table.

The statistics relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offence for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences the principal offence is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.

Number of persons given immediate custody and fined for selected offences relating to the 2005 Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, England and Wales, 2005(1) to 2007(2) (3)
Year	Given immediate custody	Fined
2005	-	-
2006	-	5
2007	-	21

(1) The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act came into force on 1 August 2005.

(2) The statistics relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences the principal offence is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more

15 Jan 2009 : Column WA184

offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.

(3) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2009-01-15a.184.0

Lord Avebury (Spokesperson for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Spokesperson for the Home Office; Liberal Democrat):

To ask Her Majesty's Government in respect of sections 132 to 138 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, how many (a) persons were arrested in each year since 2005, including 2008 to date; (b) persons in each of those groups were sent to trial; (c) persons in each of those groups were found guilty; and (d) persons in each of those groups were given a custodial sentence. [HL443]

Lord West of Spithead (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Security and Counter-terrorism), Home Office; Labour):

The Home Office does not hold this arrest data centrally. I shall write to the noble Lord once I have received that information from the Metropolitan Police.

Data showing the number of persons proceeded against, committed for trial, found guilty and given a custodial sentence under selected sections of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act from 2005 to 2007 (the latest available) are in the attached table.

The statistics relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offence for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences the principal offence is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.

Number of persons proceeded against at magistrates' courts, committed for trial, found guilty and given immediate custody for selected offences relating to the 2005 Serious Organised Crime and Police Act, 2005(1) to 2007(2) (3)
Year	Proceeded against	Committed for trial	Found guilty	Given immediate custody
2005	7	-	1	-
2006	25	-	19	-
2007	73	-	22	-

(1) The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act came into force on 1 August 2005.

(2) The statistics relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences the principal offence is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.

(3) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used.

Source: E&A Unit--Office for Criminal Justice Reform.

Ref: IOS 619-08.

15 Jan 2009 : Column WA185

The monthly ad hoc gathering of cyclists in central London, Critical Mass, have won their case in the House of Lords, against the Metropolitan Police, who have been harassing them for prior permission, names and addresses of the non-existent "organisers" etc.

The Judgment of the House of Lords:

Kay (FC) (Appellant) v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis (Respondent)

HOUSE OF LORDS

SESSION 2007-08

[2008] UKHL 69

This ruling is narrowly on the impossible requirements for notification of Processions under the Public Order Act 1986, but it also might have wider implications for spontaneous demonstrations which are still currently banned in the wretched Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 section 132 Designated Area, which the Metropolitan Police have also harassed the cyclists with.