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.

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

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.

Joint Committee on the Constitutional Renewal Bill call for evidence (.pdf)

Given the other important areas which this Bill covers e.g. War Powers, Treaties,the Civil Service and the Attorney General etc., there is a danger that the first section of the Bill will be hurriedly glossed over, and something other than a complete repeal of the extremely controversial and unpopular Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 sections 132 to 138, which the Draft Bill appears to promise, could end up being recommended by the Committee.

This must not be allowed to happen.

Protests

11. The Draft Bill provides an opportunity to re-balance the right to protest outside Parliament against the right of Parliament to operate effectively and without hindrance. How should this balance be struck?

12. Should Parliament be treated any differently from any other part of the country in terms of managing protests? How should the legitimate expectations of Parliamentarians and Parliamentary authorities be defined? In particular, would the repeal of sections 132 to 138 of Serious Organised Crime and Police Act give rise to a need for new powers for the police or other authorities to:

(i) Ensure free access to, from and around the Parliamentary Estate and to enable Parliamentarians to discharge their roles and responsibilities,
(ii) Restrict the use of loudspeakers,
(iii) Take account of the particular security risk,
(iv) Protect Parliament Square as a world heritage site,
(v) Prevent permanent demonstrations in Parliament Square,
(vi) Ensure equal access to the right to protest.

13. Are Sessional Orders (Orders passed by Parliament which impose an obligation on the Metropolitan Police Commissioner) still an appropriate means to manage protests around Parliament?

You have less than a month until 12th June 2008 if you want to try to influence this Committee, to make sure that they do not recommend some other equally undemocratic and restrictive alternative.

GUIDANCE FOR THOSE SUBMITTING WRITTEN EVIDENCE

1 Apr 2008 : Column 755W
Demonstrations: Parliament Square

Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (a) males and (b) females, broken down by age group, were (i) arrested, (ii) prosecuted and (iii) convicted of unlawful public demonstrations in Parliament Square in each of the last three years for which information is available. [192539]

Mr. McNulty: Data showing the number of males and females, by age group, proceeded against and found guilty of organising or carrying out a demonstration in a designated area in 2005 and 2006 are found in the following table. The Ministry of Justice are unable to separate offences committed in Parliament Square from those committed in other locations within the designated area.

The Home Office does not collect the information requested on arrests centrally. However I understand from the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police that since Section 132 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 came into force until the end of December 2006, there have been 91 arrests of individuals for a range of offences connected to demonstrations in the vicinity of Parliament. Data on the number of arrests in 2007 is not available.

Someone is lying or is bureaucratically inept if they cannot tally up the figures for 2007 more than 3 months into 2008.

1 Apr 2008 : Column 755W

Mr. McNulty: Data showing the number of males and females, by age group, proceeded against and found guilty of organising or carrying out a demonstration in a designated area in 2005 and 2006 are found in the following table. The Ministry of Justice are unable to separate offences committed in Parliament Square from those committed in other locations within the designated area.

The Governance of Britain - Draft Constitutional Renewal Bill (.pdf 98 pages)

The good news is that the very first section of this draft Bill would repeal the wretched sections 132 to 138 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. Hurray !

PART 1 DEMONSTRATIONS IN THE VICINITY OF PARLIAMENT

1 Repeal of sections 132 to 138 of the 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 regulates 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)

This repeal includes the ban on loudspeakers.

The inchoate offences under the Serious Crime Act 2007 i.e. conspiracy, aiding and abetting the Organisation of an unauthorised Demonstration under SOCPA section 136 offences, will also be repealed. These are on the statute book, but not yet brought into force (they were due to come into force probably next month in April)

Essentially things revert back to the status quo ante and section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 and section 62 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and section 8 of the Noise and Statutory Nuisance Act 1993 will apply to the former Designated Area, just like they do in the rest of London and to the rest of England and Wales.

These Acts do not apply to the< strong>interior public spaces of the Palace of Westminster , Portcullis House, or to the churches, theatres, cinemas, pubs clubs, bars and restaurants etc.which were caught under the SOCPA Designated Area definition of a "public place"

The Bill also changes the role of the Attorney General to that of , mostly the Director of Public Prosecutions, in deciding whether or not to go ahead with a prosecution under many bits of legislation, including the Criminal Trespass on Protected Sites section 128 of SOCPA, which is not being repealed, and which will still apply to the Palace of Westminster, Portcullis House, the north side of Downing Street and the Cabinet Office, the Ministry of Defence buildings , the Security Service MI5 and Secret Intelligence Service MI6 headquarters buildings and Buckingham Palace etc.

However, this is still only a Draft Bill, and the actual legislation might not be passed and come into force until next year.

In the meantime, the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith should rescind the Designated Area Order, which she could do with the stroke of a pen, today.

The Metropolitan Police Service and the Crown Prosecution Service should immediately drop any pending charges or prosecutions under this soon to be repealed legislation.

Ideally, there should be a Royal Pardon and a Public Apology given to those people who have been convicted under this badly conceived, badly written SOCPA section 132 legislation. Their fingerprint and DNA profiles etc. as well as those of the people who have been arrested but not charged or not convicted, should be expunged from the criminal records and intelligence databases.

Ban on protests at Parliament to be lifted

Gaby Hinsliff
The Observer,
Sunday March 23 2008

A controversial ban on protests outside the Houses of Parliament will be scrapped by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith this week in a symbolic victory for freedom of speech campaigners.

[...]

Gaby Hinsliff is the Political Editor of The Observer, and so has presumably been briefed by a suitably well placed spin doctor.

Assuming that this anonymously briefed story is true, the Home Secretary does have the power to rescind or to amend the Statutory Instrument Order which sets out the extent of the Designated Area around Parliament Square.
under sections 132 to 138 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.

Given how untrustworthy the current Government is, we will wait to see exactly what the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith really announces in detail, before celebrating any return to the status quo ante.

House of Commons Commission

12 Mar 2008 : Column 397W

[...]

Security

Mr. Amess: To ask the hon. Member for North Devon, representing the House of Commons Commission how much was spent on security in the Palace of Westminster in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [192541]

Nick Harvey: The resource cost of security for the whole of the parliamentary estate is only available from 2001-02 following the introduction of resource accounting in that year. The figures are:

Cost (£000)
	Commons	Lords	Total
2001-02	12,896	5,913	18,809
2002-03	15,319	6,928	22,247
2003-04	16,655	7,511	24,166
2004-05	18,110	8,122	26,232
2005-06	19,917	9,112	29,029
2006-07	20,292	9,313	29,605

Costs are shared between the two Houses.

In addition, there has been cash expenditure on a number of security related projects as follows:In addition, there has been cash expenditure on a number of security related projects as follows:

Cost (£000)
2001-02	199
2002-03	1,961
2003-04	1,201
2004-05	1,304
2005-06	3,719
2006-07	8,172

What exactly are they spending over £30,000 per annum for each of the 650 Members of the House of Commons (without counting the security related project costs) on ?

N.B. None of these figures includes the cost of the Metropolitan Police Service protection of the people and buildings.

What sort of signal about our freedoms and liberties does the increasingly unfriendly and inaccessible to the public "HMP Westminster", and the SOCPA Designated Area restrictions on peacful protest around Parliament Square, give to the world ?

It shows weakness, and just how out of touch the "Westminster Village" is from the real world. ]]> https://s.p10.hostingprod.com/@spyblog.org.uk/ssl/parliamentprotest/2008/03/38_million_pounds_a_year_spent_on_parliamentary_security_yet_they_still_escape_f.html https://s.p10.hostingprod.com/@spyblog.org.uk/ssl/parliamentprotest/2008/03/38_million_pounds_a_year_spent_on_parliamentary_security_yet_they_still_escape_f.html Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:48:16 +0000 Julian Todd has published the results of his Freedom of Information Act request, which lists most of the Applications for Prior Written Permission and the arrests under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2000, Sections 132 to 138.

As he points out in this blog entry,

Criminalising Protest around Parliament

this information should have been included in the now closed Public Consultation document on reforming these wretched restrictions on our freedom. The fact that they were not either points to ineptitude or deliberate deceit and political manipulation.

See the 31 scanned pages of statistics

• 1) Repeal SOCPA 2005 sections 132 to 138
• 2) No "harmonisation" with the Public Order Act 1986
• 3) Sessional Orders must be reformed for the 21st Century

• Option 1: Vastly reduce the size of the Section 138 Designated Area
• Option 2: Remove the inclusion of indoor "Public Places
• Option 3: Clarify the ambiguous extent of the Section 138 Designated Area boundary
• Option 4: Amend Section 132 to include a clear definition of the word "demonstration"
• Option 5: Modify the SOCPA 2005 Section 128 Protected Site Designations
• Option 6: Remove the Security Service MI5 Thames House "steps" anomaly

repeal-SOCPA.info has useful background briefings for the Managing Protest around Parliament public consultation, which closes this Thursday 17th January 2008.

There is a danger that this Labour Government could use this Public Consultation to "harmonise" the laws covering static demonstrations (of which the Designated Area around Parliament Square is a special case, with the Public Order laws which restrict processions and marches on the roads generally i.e. to inflict the wretched SOCPA restrictions everywhere else in England and Wales, or to apply Public Order restrictions to one person static demonstrations everywhere

Sections 132 to 138 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 should be repealed and even the Designated / Protected site "criminal trespass" section 128 needs to be modified to exclude public areas within their perimeters e.g. Central Lobby or the Committee Rooms of the Palace of Westminster and Portcullis House, the public tourist areas of WIndsor Castle etc.

The recent amendment to SOCPA section 136 made by the Serious Crime Act 2007 should also be repealed - it seems to be aimed at suppressing websites like this Parliament Protest blog, which may give information about forthcoming protests, which may or may not be legal protests.

The Sessional Orders which rightly protect Parliament from interference through obstruction or intimidation of MPs and Peers, whilst Parliament is in session, should also be restricted, so that they cannot be abused to threaten to ban marches and demonstrations, in say, Trafalgar Square or Whitehall.

It is worth sending in even a short submission, expressing your views. by this Thursday.

See also the previous blog posting : Managing Protest Around Parliament" consulatation on SOCPA ss 132-138 Designated Area around Parliament Square.

Image via Terence Bunch

without warnings the territorial support group moved in and began violently pushing and man-handling people to the pavement. one young woman was grabbed round the throat and dragged. others were pushed from behind. brian was miving backwards towards the pavement with a camera to his face when officer U1019 lunged at him deliberately and without provocation. the blow was aimed directly at brian's face and pushed his camera into his cheek causing a deep wound.

There is an approx. 8 minute video clip edited from one of the many video and other cameras recording the mostly peaceful protest which has been uploaded to archive.org.

No doubt there is other video and photo evidence witnessing the violent actions of PC U1019.

A note for for our regular Metropolitan Police, Home Office and Downing Street spin doctors and the "intelligence" gatherers who monitor this website:

There is almost certain to be official complaints to the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the Metropolitan Police Authority about this unnecessary violence.

How can you criticise, say, the brutal Governments of Burma or Pakistan or Zimbabwe etc., without the counter charge of hypocrisy, as they will be able to point to this incident of political Police violence against peaceful demonstrators outside of Downing Street ?

You are cordially invited to a public anti-Christmas carol service in Parliament Square at 6:30pm on Thursday the 20th of December 2007.

Tim Ireland from Bloggerheads is yet again organising a Christmas sing song, to show just how arbitrary and ridiculous the SOCPA ss123 - 138 Designated Area around Parliament Square really is.

In previous years, (2005 and 2006), the Metropolitan Police Service has been noticeable by their studious absence from the glare of any media publicity which might have been covering the Carol Services which Tim organised, without applying for permission.

This year, Tim has managed to "successfully apply" for Written Prior Permission to Demonstrate in the Designated Area, for an anti-Christmas.Carol Service. - exactly the same format as previous years, just singing anti-Christmas songs instead.

In other words, the Metropolitan Police Service is now in the dishonourable and unethical position of having made an Arbitrary Religious Discrimination Policing Decision, which impinges on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech.

The Guardian reports:

Help me put Gordon in jail

If MPs pass ridiculous laws to limit our freedom, they should be forced to abide by them too

Mark Thomas
Thursday December 13, 2007
The Guardian

Rarely do first lines have the potential to cost thousands of pounds (outside of libel), and rarely do I get to write words quite like those that follow; so forgive me an over-dramatic opening sentence, but yesterday lawyers acting for me started an attempt to get Gordon Brown into the dock.

With lawyers and police working on the ongoing Donorgate inquiries, Downing Street can be quite crowded if you are trying to bring a legal action. Nonetheless, my lawyers delivered a letter to the director of public prosecutions yesterday afternoon calling for an urgent investigation into allegations that the prime minister broke the law by demonstrating unlawfully in Parliament Square last summer. If found guilty he could face 50 weeks in prison - though, after serving 10 years at No 11, he should do his bird with ease.

This is a further tightening of the screws on dissent and protests against the unpopular Labour government in the far too large Designated Area around Parliament.

The equally unpopular Opposition parties have failed in their duty of holding the Government to account, by not bothering to scrutinise this amendment in detail, let alone to reject it entirely, as they should have done.

Who exactly are the Labour political appartachiki hoping to catch under this amended legislation, who they have not been able to legally threaten, harass and intimidate under the previous version of this unpopular and repressive law ?

We fear that this catch all amendment seeks to criminalise websites like this one, and other internet based supporters of the the right to peaceful protest around Parliament and beyond,

We have never advocated breaking the law, evil as it is, but this "catch all" amendment will easily be enough to threaten us or our internet service providers etc. with arrest, DNA sampling, fingerprinting, seizure of computers etc, even if no actual charges are brought.

When this Schedule comes into force, we may have to suspend this ParliamentProtest.org.uk website.

The amendment: