This is true, until the muppets started smashing up F&Ms, then it becomes aggravated trespass I think, a criminal offence. Just another reason why groups like Socialist Workers Party and Black Bloc are terribly convenient for the powers that be...
March in London on the 26th?
- Thread starter Tummy
- Start date
This is true, until the muppets started smashing up F&Ms, then it becomes aggravated trespass I think, a criminal offence. Just another reason why groups like Socialist Workers Party and Black Bloc are terribly convenient for the powers that be...
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 4,534
- Location
- UK
Absolutely excellent policing, what is your problem?
Everyone who was in that store was guilty of aggravated trespass, a criminal offence. I find the "legal observers" who were also committing aggravated trespass hilarious; you'd have to be an utter fool to take legal advice from them.
I watched the video. At no point were the protestors told they would not be detained and arrested. The WPC described everything in terms of what she was aware of at the time, said they would be heading into a "safe environment" (police custody is not an unsafe environment). She said "hopefully" in response to the question of whether people would be stopped on the way, but seemed to interpret the question as to whether they would be stopped by the violent thugs outside, not the police.
But all of that is irrelevant, because everyone in that store was ostensibly guilty of a criminal offence. Open and shut case.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
None of those in the occupation caused any damage to the shop or the stock, it's the peaceful UK Uncut protesters that were misled into arrest - hence the article.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 4,534
- Location
- UK
Once again you are wrong. Aggravated trespass is a criminal offence.
I refer you to Section 68 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994:
Those protestors were in that store (a business performing a lawful activity) with the expressed intention of obstructing and disrupting the store's lawful activity.
Look, I know how it works.
Imagine for pensions the 'private sector' pays in x amount of tax and it is split into three. It takes two thirds back to pay for its pension schemes instead of the business itself doing it after tax, and the remaining third remains with the government for commitment to workers and infrastructure etc who fascilitate government and services.
That segment that has been left for those public workers has been stolen, hacked at and is under a constant smear campaign.
The feedback loop keeping crippled companies on the go is all fine and dandy it would seem however.
Ultimately if you hate the concept of government/state etc, this is acceptable. This is why we have it today.
If you don't, you're a commy swine who understands nothing and some other blah crap.
People and organisations need to pay their way, that includes the private sector and the established politik who renegade from their commitments and promises to the public sector workers..
No public sector = no private sector I may add.
It depends on how you define wealth and how distinctly you seperate the interwoven economic areas; the private and public sector.
As for money, then of course significant proportion of it is generated in the private sector.
The public sector is an enabler, and it is under constant attack for vested interests beyond its 'growth'. "50% of the economy is now the public sector" on panorama etc. It is all nonsense.
It is likely to go on and on for ever in all honesty.
Last edited:
Can fall under aggravated trespass which I believe is a criminal offense.
About 30% of NI employment is made up in the public sector, thats jsut ridiculous, so that could have haled easily keeping services jsut fine...actually...the TAX office is in such a state the could get rid of about 3/4 of the people.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
Now what you haven't done is actually watch the video, which gives pretty solid evidence that:
A) It wasn't aggravated trespass, it was perfectly peaceful, no damage was done and those shopping in the store were carrying on.
B) The police accepted this fact and that every single one of the occupiers had been perfectly peaceful and had not committed any crime.
Unfortunatly the more that the left wing speak on these forums, the more that i have to say YES! Some of the opinions on display beggers belief
Aggravated trepass is trespass with intention to disrupt. The whole intention of UKUnCut was to disrupt, which is why they did it.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
I had a average-ish looking pension no where near your sort of final payout VS, and they crapped on it. That benefit package looks very good, is it London weighted?
Ah gee, ain't it great when citizens crap on their fellow citizens.
No London weighting. I work in the north east which has no weighting allowance.
At slam, there are inequalities in the system.
Who are the left wing?
I wouldn't be so quick to judge people I didn't know and generalise with such commitment. Each to their own I suppose.
Trespass can be both.
1)A person commits the offence of aggravated trespass if he trespasses on land [F1in the open air] and, in relation to any lawful activity which persons are engaging in or are about to engage in on that or adjoining land, does there anything which is intended by him to have the effect—
(a)of intimidating those persons or any of them so as to deter them or any of them from engaging in that activity,
(b)of obstructing that activity, or
(c)of disrupting that activity.
Anyone who unlawfully occupies a place of business such as a shop and obstructs that business in any way can be charged with aggravated trespass.
There is also this little bit of legislation in the criminal justice and public order act which could apply also:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/section/70
Removing unwanted and obstructive people is a daily occurrence within the business that I work, The Police move on or arrest those who refuse to leave as a matter of course and on occasion they have been charged and convicted with aggravated trespass, even when there has been no violent disorder or criminal damage. (which are crimes in themselves anyway)
Aggravated Trespass doesn't need violence or criminal damage, it only requires that you are obstructing the lawful pursuit of your business, which those protesters were guilty of. It was a criminal offence, not a civil one.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
Business was carrying on as usual in the shop. Just another disgusting technique by the MET here, when it comes to working class struggle they may as well be the army.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 4,534
- Location
- UK
You cannot possibly say that business was carrying on as usual in the shop.
Tape was plastered over display cabinets, protestors were chanting slogans loudly, a critical mass of protestors in various locations on the shop floors prevented the movement of customers about the store, and police were forced to prevent additional people from entering the store.
The store presumably lost tens of thousands of pounds in trade during and after the occupation, not to mention the criminal damage committed to the outside of the building.
The entire purpose of the UK Uncut movement is to obstruct and disrupt businesses that it disagrees with. They might as well have "aggravated trespass" as their tagline.
No, you are wrong.
They were clearly a disruption to the operation of a lawful business and as such can be asked to move on and/or arrested if they refuse to do so.
A shop or place of business is not a public right of way, the public only have limited access and rights within the store or business premises or property owned by the store or business and the owners reserve the right to refuse entry to whomever they choose. If they refuse to leave then it becomes a matter for the police and a criminal offence under the public order act.
It is as simple as that.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
What's the point in debating with you if you won't even look at the evidence?
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Now, now weza - I'm sympathetic so some of your thoughts but you can't just make a blanket statement like that and tar them all with the same brush.
There were many Police officers I spoke to that day that were sympathetic to the cause and there were many off duty officers marching (putting themselves at significant risk of disciplinary action I might add) along with lots of retired police officers.
We also had Ghurkas marching and a contingent of soldiers in wheelchairs (their state assistance is being slashed under the current regime). To insinuate our Army would let themselves be used as a method of civilian oppression is frankly insulting.
Your arguments are losing any credibility they might have had by making it sound like you're just rebelling against authority with no purpose.
Last edited by a moderator: