March in London on the 26th?

[Biohazard]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2011/mar/29/police-uk-uncut?CMP=twt_gu





Bloody hell... this is your utopia?

That, if entirely accurate from the protester side of view, is a pretty shocking picture of democracy and policing.

I wonder how long the protest resolve can hold out, the Government aren't going to change anytime soon they have just got started.

It's regrettable that a 15-year-old girl was so distressed by being arrested on legitimate grounds. Perhaps she will think twice before putting herself in a position where police officers reasonably suspect her of committing a crime in the future.

That would be a thought crime, Robin!

There were not legitimate grounds for 149 individual cases being bagged together and arrested as criminals. Given witness statements so far, I doubt she was smashing the place up either.

 

[Al Vallario]

That is conflation and a straw man.

I am more than happy to use lethal force in my own home if I am in genuine fear of my life and expect others to do so, this has no relation at all to the kind of protest civil trespass in discussion.

It is not a straw man to explain my own views on a related issue to put an apparent disagreement between our views in context. It seems you do not appreciate the extent to which I believe trespassing to be a violation of an individuals' rights. You state you would support lethal force where your life was in danger; I would support the use of lethal force regardless of whether my life is in danger, provided the individual is aware they are trespassing and has refused to leave.

I would say they are highlighting what they feel they need to in the best way to attract attention to it in their eyes, I don't believe they all set out with the intention of aggravated trespass.

If there was such suspicion police would have and should have acted immediately.

To beat an increasingly lifeless horse, I could argue that me burning your house down is me "highlighting what feel need to do in the best way to attract attention to it in [my] eyes". Doesn't make me justified in doing so. I certainly don't think all of the protestors set out with the intention to commit aggravated trespass, but I believe many of them did, although they may not have appreciated the fact it was a criminal offence.

No you do not as that is again another extreme example you have drawn.

The real issue is different when it comes down to access by right or by invitation to the public implied or expressly stated and the fact that there is nothing wrong in protesting in a public shop as long as you do not interfere.

Protest by way of peaceful assembly in a public place or establishment is not an unlawful intrusion, and if there is no damage or interference, there is actually very little going on that is of a serious concern.

The only difference between a shop and your living room is that the public have an 'implied licence' to enter the former and not the latter. Once that licence has been rescinded and a person has been asked to leave the shop (as is presumably the case in this instance), the distinction collapses.

Shops are not public places. You do not have the right to assemble in a shop if the shop owner does not want you to do so. Just like your living room. Everything else is irrelevant if you do not want me on your property.

What are people going to be protesting about if it isn't a contested moral disagreement?



The lack of purple smarties in the market place?

Think about what you are saying.

Numerous things. People can be agreed on substantive goals but disagree over the best means of achieving them. People can disagree over matters due to an asymmetry of information, because one person has mistakenly interpreted data, etc.

Not all disagreements are over essentially contested (not just contested as you misquoted me) moral precepts. The UK Uncut actions are.

Straw man in lieu of appropriate response to points

Your wild examples are not appropriate and neither is protest a constant infringement of rights, indeed it need not be any at all.

No, protest is not a constant infringement of rights. I support the right to any form of protest that does not infringe on other individuals' rights.

Trespass, and especially aggravated trespass, is an infringement of rights. You support forms of protest that involve such infringements, but you seem to be inconsistent in your application of this principle.

The point of my examples is to expose this inconsistency in your thought. You are drawing a distinction between a shop and your living room, for example, where for the purpose of this argument none exists. You draw a distinction between aggravated trespass and the burning to the ground of businesses I disagree with where, once again, none exists. The latter is certainly a more extreme — or "wild" as you put it — act, but they are both infringements of rights.

Which is great, because hardly any of them did so. Read none.

Very debatable. The fact I cannot prove they committed aggravated trespass does not mean they did not.

So you are comparing the actions of sit in style protesters to that of burning down residential property?

Ok, but that is plainly stupid these analogies aren't that great.

Yes. It's reductio ad absurdum; the example is intentionally absurd. It demonstrates the absurdity of allowing the infringement of peoples' rights based on your personally-held moral convictions. Your argument that aggravated trespass is a justified form of protest may equally be used to justify the burning down of your own home as a form of protest. It's an absurd argument. Rights such as those not to have your property trespassed on, your business disrupted by trespassers, or your home burned down, are all inviolable. The right to protest does not trump such rights.

Also Is the government taking itself against its own moral standard required by law by investing in closing the tax gap, and constantly assessing the loss to the public purse by these schemes that benefit the few?

Isn't the civil service attacking the governments own laws by your example of right wing economics?

I don't quite understand your point here; could you elaborate please?

We do not live in a police state.

There has to be valid suspicion for arrest in either case. Suspicion of intent, it can't be proved here.

We do not live in a police state, but it would be unreasonable and impracticable to burden our police officers with the requirement that every arrest made be an open-and-shut case. Just as you cannot tell what intentions the protestors had, you cannot tell what suspicions the arresting officers had.

I've already raised why this is totally and completely pointless near enough, or can certainly be very strong perceived to be.

Try telling that to the countless people around the world who are putting their lives on the line as we speak to secure the right to peaceful protest. Tell them it's totally and completely pointless.

 

[Biohazard]

It is not a straw man to explain my own views on a related issue to put an apparent disagreement between our views in context. It seems you do not appreciate the extent to which I believe trespassing to be a violation of an individuals' rights.

UK Cuts and other protesters didn't invade a private residence.

It has no direct correlation at all, the circumstances are completely different.

I am glad you told me your superfluous square logic opinion on the matter however.

You state you would support lethal force where your life was in danger; I would support the use of lethal force regardless of whether my life is in danger, provided the individual is aware they are trespassing and has refused to leave.

Great, but as paranoid as you may be UK Cuts are not out to break into your living room and beat you to death.

To beat an increasingly lifeless horse, I could argue that me burning your house down is me "highlighting what feel need to do in the best way to attract attention to it in [my] eyes". Doesn't make me justified in doing so.

No it doesn't. This is a false and perverted analogy. I've had enough of these, thanks.

I certainly don't think all of the protestors set out with the intention to commit aggravated trespass, but I believe many of them did, although they may not have appreciated the fact it was a criminal offence.

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, especially amongst politically charged citizens.

I do not believe many set out to commit aggravated trespass at all. Many may subconciously recognise before hand that by taking a peaceful protest there en masse it may have the same end result as preventing business through overcrowding as a byproduct; but if that turns into a reality then it is not the fault of the individual protester.

Deal with it over all as a civil matter, not as a criminal one.

Those who are committing more serious crimes should have course be detained immediately. Doubtful but if evidence has been obtained of purposeful direction or instruction on the scene or before to actively obstruct business then that could be looked at.

I suspect in this case it will not be the case.

The only difference between a shop and your living room is that the public have an 'implied licence' to enter the former and not the latter. Once that licence has been rescinded and a person has been asked to leave the shop (as is presumably the case in this instance), the distinction collapses.

So it is in effect nothing to do with implied breaking and entering, and has nothing to do with the right of using reasonable force to kill in your own defense as you implied with the analogy then?

It is still a civil matter.

To draw in another comparison into the mix since it is such a jolly thing to do, imagine it as temporary squatting except it isn't a vacant property or land it is a private pseudo public space. Interestingly squating can also cost business and people a lot of money and aggravation, and still remains a civil matter unless physical damage has been caused.

Shops are not public places. You do not have the right to assemble in a shop if the shop owner does not want you to do so. Just like your living room. Everything else is irrelevant if you do not want me on your property.

Which is a civil disagreement.

Numerous things. People can be agreed on substantive goals but disagree over the best means of achieving them. People can disagree over matters due to an asymmetry of information, because one person has mistakenly interpreted data, etc.

There is a of course a relative point in what you say but to draw it across as a majority with nothing more than conjecture and use it to argue that all left/keynesian/*other* opposition to your ideology as next to nearly defunct is a fallacy. You think what is happening now is the right course of action, and that others are wrong. Otherwise you would also admit that there are those on the further economic right who also have differing views from the mainstream, expressing quite disappointment in fact.

There is justification if the end justifies the means, as long as it is peaceful.

Not all disagreements are over essentially contested (not just contested as you misquoted me) moral precepts. The UK Uncut actions are.

I did not misquote you, in post 1560 I clearly quoted that one line, and paraphrased it;

Especially the UK Uncut actions because they are rooted in essentially contested moral disagreements. Everyone has a different conception of what is morally right.

What are people going to be protesting about if it isn't a contested moral disagreement?



The lack of purple smarties in the market place?

Think about what you are saying.

Can you see precepts in there? No I can't either.

This nonsense aside it does not detract from the point you are making. That, itself, still makes no sense.

People aren't going to all protest at once over a million little different things in their lifes no one cares about, people protest over issues that normally divide the country. Like war, and foreign policy government spending cuts and private sector excess/failure or other countries issues.

They are all contested moral disagreements.

No, protest is not a constant infringement of rights. I support the right to any form of protest that does not infringe on other individuals' rights.

Trespass, and especially aggravated trespass, is an infringement of rights. You support forms of protest that involve such infringements, but you seem to be inconsistent in your application of this principle.

Trespass is not automatically an infringement of other peoples rights.

I support peaceful protest in grey/ambiguous areas of the law, yes.

The point of my examples is to expose this inconsistency in your thought. You are drawing a distinction between a shop and your living room, for example, where for the purpose of this argument none exists.

There is no inconsistency at all.
I drew that distinction because of your false analogy and mentioning killing people in self defense at home in relation to a peaceful protest. You make it with the assumption you are ultimately correct with all your facts and ideology and morals. It doesn’t make it so.

You draw a distinction between aggravated trespass and the burning to the ground of businesses I disagree with where, once again, none exists.

It wasn't aggravated trespass, no one was burned killed shot or anything. The business is still here, the Queen will get her shopping!!

This has no relevance. There is a massive distinction, unless you ignore breaking and entering for a start.

Also to note - I did not draw that distinction because it wasn't what you said.

The latter is certainly a more extreme — or "wild" as you put it — act, but they are both infringements of rights.

You take a small peaceful example and compare it to a violent and deadly situation.

And this is not hyperbolic at all, no?

Protesters aren't terrorists, no?

Very debatable. The fact I cannot prove they committed aggravated trespass does not mean they did not.

Ah negative proof.

There isn't any debate in it at the moment from what we know, so far the police have failed to present any evidence to the lawyers of 149 people.

Yes. It's reductio ad absurdum; the example is intentionally absurd. It demonstrates the absurdity of allowing the infringement of peoples' rights based on your personally-held moral convictions. Your argument that aggravated trespass is a justified form of protest may equally be used to justify the burning down of your own home as a form of protest. It's an absurd argument. Rights such as those not to have your property trespassed on, your business disrupted by trespassers, or your home burned down, are all inviolable. The right to protest does not trump such rights.

Argumentum ad nauseam/Straw Man.

It isn't breaking peoples rights as you infer, this isn't your analogy of burning houses. It is temporarily breaking the rights of plc's and large enterprises, and in some cases near publically owned 'private' entities, on the whole with what is a peaceful protest.

The concept of aggravated trespass is relatively new, open to subjective arguments and overpowered to the land owner certainly in cases of minor short term peaceful protests when invoked.

This was a valid protest method that was removed from the population for the benefit of the few because of the abuse by an extreme minority against them; and now it happens to help if you use it in bulk in situations like this to deal with less dangerous and less personally confrontational demonstrations..

So why would I all of a sudden take your extreme black and white 'they are criminals ' view on the matter as de facto, and its over simplicity in application of social rights?

I am certainly right wing economically, but morally this black and white yet misconstrued nonsense disgusts me. That is why I will never go near this kind of politics.

I argue against reducing punative messures towards protest over recent years. Which does include things like superfluous aggravated trespass charges and counter terrorism charges. It does not mean I am taking a ridiculous argument. This was one used heavily under the right against Labour; now it has all but disappeared.

These laws are a result of a spotlight policy or outright fallacies, and as such has removed quite valid methods of protest.

If you obstruct the business willfully by blocking access like chaining the doors and damaging equipment and other destructive behavior then I fully support action in those cases by matter of course.

I don't quite understand your point here; could you elaborate please?

A group of protestors have taken it upon themselves to hold businesses to a different moral standard than that required by law, and are justifying breaking the law to protest against those businesses on those grounds.

You seem to infer that the Treasury/Revenue position on evasion schemes is a static ‘moral position’. It isn't, it is an economic balance with political influence.

What is considered an acceptable clause or scheme this year may not be next year, depending on the popularity complexity in fighting and cost to revenue.

This is under constant assessment. So, if you claim there is a legal moral standard in law then changing the position by way of this assessment is surely breaking this claimed moral standard?

Treasury decisions aren't impervious.

We do not live in a police state, but it would be unreasonable and impracticable to burden our police officers with the requirement that every arrest made be an open-and-shut case.

That is not justification to scoop up hundreds of people at a time.

Just as you cannot tell what intentions the protestors had, you cannot tell what suspicions the arresting officers had.

Woohoo, eventually.

Try telling that to the countless people around the world who are putting their lives on the line as we speak to secure the right to peaceful protest. Tell them it's totally and completely pointless.

Another tiresome emotive strawman.

The comment was regarding your continued opinion of aggravated trespass.

I am arguing for more rights here in light of restrictive measures recently, and do argue for freedom of movement and speech abroad.

You are the one who has been undermining the process here by claiming we should't protest for morally/poltically polarised issues, not me.

 

[Tefal]

26th July Movement? Began with just 82 people, ended up overthrowing the government. 250,000 could easily do it, if they knew what was required and had the conviction to do it. A bit of forward planning would help too.

Sorry your mistaking ability with right.

As for the rest, again, how many people usually form a jury? Also, innocent? What planet are you on?

yes but what you are proposing is after the general election win by a government (the jury's decision) that some bloke round the back has the right to stab the defender in the side before the bailiff can stop him if he disagrees with the verdict.

 

[scorza]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2011/mar/29/police-uk-uncut?CMP=twt_gu





Bloody hell... this is your utopia?

One thing is for sure, with one fell swoop the Met police have made Ed Milliband's comparisons between the uncut protesters and the suffragettes and anti-apartheid campaigners look even more accurate.

I felt physically sick watching this video: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/...rotesters-uk-uncut-video?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487 The crime? messing with the rich.

This is not the actions of a modern democracy, it's the actions of a police state, the sort of thing I would expect to see in Gaddafi's Libya.

 

[RDM]

This is not the actions of a modern democracy, it's the actions of a police state, the sort of thing I would expect to see in Gaddafi's Libya.

We are very far removed from any sort of police state. Hence why you can still post the above and have no fear of being arrested.

The issue is the conflict of rights between the right to protest and the right to go about your lawful business. You still have the right to protest (as many thousands of people did on Saturday) what you do not have is the right to protest freely on private property.

 

[scorza]

We are very far removed from any sort of police state. Hence why you can still post the above and have no fear of being arrested.

The issue is the conflict of rights between the right to protest and the right to go about your lawful business. You still have the right to protest (as many thousands of people did on Saturday) what you do not have is the right to protest freely on private property.

Only under a very dubious interpretation of aggravated trespass - will you concede that if these charges are dropped before a trial then the policing will have been way over the top?

Any ideas why protesters were charged with criminal damage? a charge that was dropped very quickly, detained for almost 24 hours, denied access to solicitors, had their clothes taken off them for no other reason other than the police having that right. Here's a good commentary on why these new policing policies are very dangerous indeed http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/mar/30/uk-uncut-arrests-protests . This is the establishment saying "this is what you get if you mess with us", nothing more.

 

[Danthus]

Denied access to solicitors? One of the very first things you are told when you arrive at the custody suite is your right to legal representation, your own solicitor or one will be provided for you.

PACE says that is the case.

 

[scorza]

The occupation of Fortnum & Mason on 26 March was no different, as footage of the protest demonstrates. Despite this, and despite the police in the store praising the protest as "sensible", we were dragged away, arrested and taken to police stations around London. One of the protesters was 15 years old.

That protester, like me and many others, was locked in a cell for nearly 24 hours on the basis of evidence that was never presented to solicitors – solicitors who were not contacted until the next morning. In the early hours of the morning we were unexpectedly woken up and told to take off our clothes. When we asked why, we were simply told that the police had the right to seize our clothes and would be doing so.

Aren't duty solicitors on call 24 hours a day these days?

 

[Danthus]

So they were not denied access as you previously said!

 

[avec]

The UK Uncut people are complete morons and their view of the situation this country is in is beyond ridiculous. They are living in a fantasy land of over-entitlement and selfish ideology.

Right now the cuts don't go deep enough, or into the right places for us to truly have a hope at getting out of this mess any time soon.

It makes me genuinely sad that these morons will try so hard to cause havoc over a tiny amount of cuts for all the wrong reasons.

I'm very sorry that many of you Union fools took up public sector positions that are unaffordable, unnecessary and have created a financial burden for the state to bear. That doesn't mean you can go around protesting against a threat to your unnecessary and wasteful job, it's not the way to behave.

The police are facing plenty of cuts, yet they were standing around being abused by a bunch of union members and spoilt children with nothing better to do for an entire day. They endured violence and abuse the entire day all the while knowing that they are facing cuts too.

That girl writing in the Guardian is a fool, moaning about the attention some people get after doing something, calling herself a political prisoner and then forgetting that she was arrested for a valid reason, did not get charged and upon her release is now writing an article in the Guardian.

Why didn't she sit in the Guardian's offices causing mayhem over tax avoidance?

 

[XeNoN89]

This is not the actions of a modern democracy, it's the actions of a police state, the sort of thing I would expect to see in Gaddafi's Libya.

Stupid comments like this are going to cause me serious harm from extreme face palming soon

 

[RDM]

Only under a very dubious interpretation of aggravated trespass - will you concede that if these charges are dropped before a trial then the policing will have been way over the top?

Sure thing, as long as you concede that your allusions to a police state are nothing more than hyperbole.

Any ideas why protesters were charged with criminal damage? a charge that was dropped very quickly, detained for almost 24 hours, denied access to solicitors, had their clothes taken off them for no other reason other than the police having that right. Here's a good commentary on why these new policing policies are very dangerous indeed http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/mar/30/uk-uncut-arrests-protests . This is the establishment saying "this is what you get if you mess with us", nothing more.

I have no idea at all. However so far we are getting one side of the story only.

At the end of the day surely it is right for people and businesses to be able to go about their lawful business without obstruction? Protest is still an option (as thousands of people found out on Saturday) and UK Uncut can still protest they just have to be a little bit more careful in about how they go about doing it.

 

[Danthus]

Scorza contradicted himself within one post of his original claim that the people arrested were denied access to a solicitor.

 

[scorza]

So they were not denied access as you previously said!

"I want a solicitor"
"You can't have one now - you'll have to wait until morning"

What's that if not denying access? Immediate access to legal representation is a fundamental human right and it's very dangerous to leave suspects at the mercy of the police, as we should know from the '70s and '80s. You can bet your ass that if they were real criminals and the police wanted to interview them a solicitor would arrive pretty damn quick.

 

[Danthus]

So they were not denied access to a solicitor as you claim, yes or no?

 

[RDM]

"I want a solicitor"
"You can't have one now - you'll have to wait until morning"

What's that if not denying access? Immediate access to legal representation is a fundamental human right and it's very dangerous to leave suspects at the mercy of the police, as we should know from the '70s and '80s. You can bet your ass that if they were real criminals and the police wanted to interview them a solicitor would arrive pretty damn quick.

Alternatively it may have been due to numbers and the duty solicitor was seeing each person in turn? Processing all 140+ people probably took most of the time that they were detained.

 

[scorza]

So they were not denied access to a solicitor as you claim, yes or no?

Yes they were denied access, as I said.

 

[scorza]

Alternatively it may have been due to numbers and the duty solicitor was seeing each person in turn? Processing all 140+ people probably took most of the time that they were detained.

They were spread out at a number of police stations around the capital, and one imagines that there's more than one duty solicitor for the whole of London

 

[RDM]

They were spread out at a number of police stations around the capital, and one imagines that there's more than one duty solicitor for the whole of London

Well it was the weekend and even solicitors are allowed time off.