It's a Free Country..

[liadnan]

Various people have picked up on the story of the 82 year old thrown out of the Labour Party conference for heckling Jack Straw (seems you were lucky Ritu in doing it in an environment he didn't control...). Which was in itself a fucking disgrace (and the story of Austin Mitchell having his photographs deleted by the police isn't too impressive either.)

But the point I find scariest about the first story is the second paragraph:

"Police later used powers under the Terrorism Act to prevent Mr Wolfgang's re-entry"

I'm sorry, Terrorism Act powers? Against an 84 year old heckler? Please tell me this is a mistake in the report. But the long-running story of the ban on demonstrating in Parliament Square (fundamentally flawed and an utter failure in that it was aimed solely at one person and is unusable against him) makes me suspect not.

Comments

[itchyfidget.livejournal.com]

The queue for a police state starts here ...

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

A queue? Isn't that an assembly of two or more people banned under Public Order legislation?

[liadnan]

"Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the Act made in the first year of King George the First for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God Save the King."

[eccles.livejournal.com]

*stands up*

God save the King!

*sits down*

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

No need to read me the Riot Act...

[nicnac.livejournal.com]

< Four people = An affray
> Four people = A Riot

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

< Four people = Troilism
> Four people = Greedy

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

Sorry, statement only true for values where

x >2 and <4

[(Anonymous)]

>4

[frankie-ecap.livejournal.com]

<, shurely?

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

<4

[liadnan]

You've lost me now Ted.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

I seem to have a problem with LJ when typing the symbols for less than 4.

They disapear.

Weird.

[liadnan]

It thinks you're emabrking on HTML code. You need the watchamacallit, escaped character code.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

If it thinks I'm embarking on a journey like that, it should wave a hankie, not blank me. And after I paid for an upgrade to my account, too.

[frankie-ecap.livejournal.com]

< four people is not troilism in every case.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

Stop revising.

[frankie-ecap.livejournal.com]

Stop jumping in. I'm always going to revise.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

I don't jump, I glide...

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

Personally, I'm glad that the police are reacting to critiscism that they were guilty of racism in their targetting of young, asian males as potential terrorist suspects.

[eccles.livejournal.com]

They aren't good stories from a PR point of view. Though to be fair with the photography one, he probably wasn't in a public place and therefore the proprietor of the building can make up any rules he likes such as "only authorised and vetted press photographers". Whether the police should have been involved I'm not sure. Also with the old guy heckling he was apparently a guest not a delegate and it wasn't a public event. I'm not trying to defend it at all and either way it smacks of heavy handedness.

Incidentally, as most digital cameras use a FAT filing system the pictures aren't necessarily deleted and could in theory be recovered by a forensic data recovery firm.

[liadnan]

he was apparently a guest not a delegate and it wasn't a public event

That certainly entitles the party to exclude him, though in doing so they show a casual disregard for any principle of freedom of speech.

It provides no justification whatsoever for police use of Terrorism Act powers.

1. - (1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where-



(a) the action falls within subsection (2),



(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and



(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

(2) Action falls within this subsection if it-



(a) involves serious violence against a person,



(b) involves serious damage to property,



(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,



(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or



(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

(3) The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

2(e) gets me every time... What a strange piece of tag-on legislation.

[liadnan]

Bit odd I grant, but to be fair a successful attack designed to put, I dunno, the LSX say, out of action would be a genuinely inspired and effective ploy for a terrorist with some nous for PR.

[eccles.livejournal.com]

Careful now, isn't that facilitating or encouraging acts of terrorism? (or whatever they call it this week)

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

Hmm, and I've spent a fair bit of time looking at counter-measures for that kind of attack.

But an attack on Microsoft's customer records? Or Sony's Play Station?

[liadnan]

Someone else analyses the relevant sections (44 and 45) of the Act here.

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

I'm not surprised. If you give the police powers they will use them. Any suggestion that they will use discretion in setting their own limits is wishful thinking.

[tybalt-quin.livejournal.com]

Well you know, 80 year old men are the key Al Qaeda demographic. Think about it, they can emit noxious gas aimed at decimating small crowds at will, they stun people with their stories of rationing and the days before television and no one ever suspects the elderly.

Police Officer: "What have you got in your tartan shopping trolly, sir?"

80 year old man: "Just a small bottle of lemonade and a packet of ginger nuts, officer. Back in the war-"

Police Officer: "Okay, move along now."

80 year old man: "Heh heh heh" :says under breath: "And a string of grenades attached to nerve gas so that I can kill all the pigs ..."

Police Officer: :suspicious: "What was that?"

80 year old man: "I was telling myself that back in the war, the government let us keep pigs. Churchill said-"

Police Officer: "Move along."

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

Plus, let's face it, they have less to lose when they pull out the pin...

[tybalt-quin.livejournal.com]

:nods:

And false teeth make better shrapnel than ball bearings.

[rparvaaz.livejournal.com]

Ah, Marcus, I know enough about politicians to know that there are rules to heckling them. You do it only when questions have been invited, and you do it *very* politely. Fr'ex, you don't shout 'nonsense' but you say 'Do you think X has been thought out clearly? For precedents A,B, and C seem to indicate G,H, and I.'

Y'see, politicians are not used to hearing the blunt truth baldly stated. Most of them spend their entire lives evading it. So one has to be gentle with them, or they tend to go into a deep shock and revert to the political version of animal reaction: 'I am big, I am important! How dare s/he speak to me like this?'

Of course, all of the above is good strategy only if you are trying to make the politician feel safe enough to think in a particular direction. If your aim is different [venting spleen, showing up the chap, stating the truth and/or taking a stand], you can be blessedly blunt.

The use of the Terrorism act was a bit of an overkill though. Still, he prolly did you guys a favour. I don't think that the Brits are all that used to their politicos lording it over them, and this [and similar incidents] might make a difference in how the voters view them.

[rparvaaz.livejournal.com]

That made the headlines here today - Blair's Britain Doesn't Tolerate 'Nonsense'.