March 2006 Archives

Parliament Square Garden is the public park in the middle of Parliament Square. Why are people being arrested , charged and convicted for holding a peaceful Sunday afternoon tea party or picnic ?

Surely it is one of the functions of a public park to provide a space where such picnics can be held by anyone ?

PRESS RELEASE
Thursday 30 March 2006

TRIAL FOR TAKING PART IN 'TEA PARTY' WITHIN PROTEST EXCLUSION ZONE

FRIDAY 31 MARCH at 10am, BOW STREET MAGISTRATES COURT, LONDON

The trial of a man who was taking part in a free speech 'tea party' on Parliament Square will take place on Friday. Mark Barrett was arrested on 28 August 2005 under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (SOCPA) for being part of an unauthorised 'demonstration' (despite the fact that at the time he was having a picnic with a group of friends). [A]

Since the new law was introduced there has been a weekly picnic and 'People's Commons' discussion in Parliament Square, both of which seek to challenge the controversial protest exclusion zone introduced last year and to highlight its implications for freedom of speech and association as enshrined into UK law in the Human Rights Act of 1998. [B]

Mark Barrett was arrested while sitting on the grass drinking tea and eating cake. Although, other picnickers have been arrested (on different occasions), charges against them were dropped.

Eleven people have been convicted so far of taking part in unauthorised demonstrations near Parliament.

Mark Barrett said, 'Our picnic is a creative response which challenges the unconstitutional SOCPA legislation, which arbitrarily criminalises public behaviour and all spontaneous peaceful expression around Parliament: a huge and telling affront to our supposed democracy.'

CONTACT Mark Barrett on 07854 390408
See www.parliamentprotest.org.uk and www.peopleincommon.org for more information

NOTES
[A] Under the new Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (April 2005) anyone wishing to demonstrate within 1km of Parliament must apply to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner at least 6 days in advance or, if not "reasonably practicable", 24 hours in advance. Permission must be granted but the Commissioner can impose draconian conditions on the protest including: when and where it can take place; how long it can last; how many people can attend; how much noise can be made; and the number and size of banners and placards used.

[B] For more details on the circumstances of Mark Barrett's arrest see http://politics.guardian.co.uk/commons/story/0,9061,1559299,00.html

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 all on her own with no other people involved. Why should anyone be punished for holding a banner saying "I am not the Serious Organised Criminal" ?

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.

Milan Rai, who was charged along with Maya Evans for the tiny, peaceful 2 person "reading out the names of the British soldiers killed in Iraq " Remembrance Ceremony by the Cenotaph in Whitehall last October, is due in court tomorrow.

He is the first person to be charged with organising an unauthorised demonstration under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.

Although he appears too have been told that he might not be facing more than 3 months in prison if convicted, the law actually states:

136 Offences under sections 132 to 135: penalties

(1) A person guilty of an offence under section 132(1)(a) is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, or to both.

A fine of Level 4 on the standard scale is up to £2500

Press Release:

Interestingly , the Stop the War Coalition press release (see below) claims that

The Metropolitan Police seem set to withdraw permission for demonstrators to assemble in the Square

The Police could withdraw permission for a procession or march which blocks traffic on the highway, under the various laws which govern those e.g. sections 11 to 14 of the Public Order Act 1986.

However , under Section 132 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, they cannot actually withdraw permission, since that has to be automatically granted if a written application is made "at least 6 clear days" or at least 24 hours" beforehand

What they can do under Section 135. is to arbitrarily add to or change the Conditions which may or may not have been imposed when the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis autoomatically granted permission for a "demonstration" within the Designated Area.

It will be interesting to see if there are any arrests for breaking the terms of such conditions, which will be a first use of those particular sections of this dreadful law.

Stop the War Coalition Press Release:

The publicity for the new film "V for Vendetta" by the Wachowski brothers of "The Matrix" trilogy fame, is now gearing up.

Incredibly, the film crew took over Parliament Square and Whitehall at night, over the weekend of the 1st to the 3rd of June 2005, (see the offical photos) to stage the scenes where dozens of Guy Fawkes costumed "terrorists / freedom fighters" blow up the Houses of Parliament, an area patrolled by military security forces with armoured vehicles etc.

There were "V for Vendetta" signs, logos and slogans and also the authoritarian Government propaganda such as 'Strength through Unity, Unity through Faith!', and "The Future is Ours".

Is this fiction or a preview of the next NuLabour election campaign ?

Could the permissions from "14 different Government Departments" have been secured, partly due to the influence of Euan Blair, the son of Prime Minister Tony Blair, who was employed as a runner on the film as part of his work experience ?

Is it not ironic , that only two months later, when the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 Sections 132 to 138 came fully into force, people were being arrested, prosecuted and convicted for displaying even non-political banners or holding entirely peaceful religous or remembrance ceremonies, without prior written permission from the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, having caused no disruption to the security or life in the Designated Area, unlike the film crew ?

Will wearing ir dispalying any "V for Vendetta" merchandise now be enough to get you arrested within the Designated Area ?

There was a Channel 4 TV documentary Dispatches: Stealing Your Freedom shown on Monday 27th February 2006, which included a segment with Maya Evans and Peter Hitchins reading out some of the same names of British military casulaties in Iraq, at the same spot near the Cenotaph in Whitehall, where Maya was arrested and subsequently convicted under SOCPA section 132.

Illogically, since this action was part of a TV programme, starring a major newspaper political commntator, it was not deemed to be a protest or a "demonstration", and they were not arrested.

You can set your video recorders for the repeat showings of the documentary on:

• Channel 4 on Saturday 4th March 4.30am - 5:25am ,
• More4 Saturday 4th March, 8:10pm - 9:10pm,
• More4+1 Saturday 4th March, 9:10pm - 10:10pm
• Channel 4 Sunday 5th March 4:30am - 5:25am

04:30 Dispatches: Stealing Your Freedom

Political commentator Peter Hitchens looks at how the recent avalanche of security legislation has affected the civil liberties of ordinary people in Britain. He argues that the government's measures, designed to protect us from crime and terrorism, are in fact a menace to freedom and not a threat to criminals.