Iuchi_Zien Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 The met spokesman quoted in the article said they were appealing the decision because they feel they need guidance. Good decision. The court of appeal can set precedent and can give the police very clear guidance. Should they choose not to do so, then the matter will be referred to the House of Lords for a ruling. Ideally, of course, Parliament - which is supposed to make the law - should have provided the police with a clear set of rules in the first place. This is just another example of the courts having to sort out the mess made by Parliament provide a more clear explanation of what Parliament intended to do. People do (and should) have the right to protest peacefully. The police are required to attend protests both to protect other people and property from the protestors and to protect the protestors themselves. Should you and I decide to take a football into a public park and kick it around, then - providing we weren't causing a nuisance (such as using the football to knock over small children) there wouldn't be a problem. If one of us was to kick the ball out of the park and break a window in a neighbouring house, then we would be expected to pay for the damage - but accidents do happen. If, however, you and I owned football teams and we arranged a game at Hillsborough which attracted 39,812 people (OK, a bit unlikely - 398 might be nearer the mark ) then the police would provide a presence and we would have to pay for that policing - even if we gave the tickets away. Furthermore, if our two teams misbehaved on the field - or if our fans misbehaved off it - we might well be fined. Why should protestors be treated in a different manner? If you and I decided to stand outside Sheffield Town Hall waving placards protesting about something that would be our right and I doubt that SYP would spend a lot of money policing the protest. But if you and I organised a major protest which attracted 50,000 protestors, the police would provide a very significant presence. Why should we not receive a bill for the policing? If the protestors caused damage, why should we not be held liable? 'Everybody has the right to protest' is not the same as 'Everybody has the right to protest and the right to make other people pay to enable them to do so.' The behaviour of the police at protests does need to be reviewed and it appears that the police need very clear guidance on the tactics they may use. Perhaps it's also time to review the policy of providing free policing at protests. If a football club has top pay for policing, why shouldn't the organisers of a protest? If a football club is responsible for the (mis)behaviour of its fans, why shouldn't the organisers of a protest be responsible for the misbehaviour of their fans? So you are only allowed to protest if you are rich enough? And who decides the charges? the Police? Parliament? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted April 15, 2011 Author Share Posted April 15, 2011 The met spokesman quoted in the article said they were appealing the decision because they feel they need guidance. Good decision. The court of appeal can set precedent and can give the police very clear guidance. Should they choose not to do so, then the matter will be referred to the House of Lords for a ruling. Ideally, of course, Parliament - which is supposed to make the law - should have provided the police with a clear set of rules in the first place. This is just another example of the courts having to sort out the mess made by Parliament provide a more clear explanation of what Parliament intended to do. People do (and should) have the right to protest peacefully. The police are required to attend protests both to protect other people and property from the protestors and to protect the protestors themselves. Should you and I decide to take a football into a public park and kick it around, then - providing we weren't causing a nuisance (such as using the football to knock over small children) there wouldn't be a problem. If one of us was to kick the ball out of the park and break a window in a neighbouring house, then we would be expected to pay for the damage - but accidents do happen. If, however, you and I owned football teams and we arranged a game at Hillsborough which attracted 39,812 people (OK, a bit unlikely - 398 might be nearer the mark ) then the police would provide a presence and we would have to pay for that policing - even if we gave the tickets away. Furthermore, if our two teams misbehaved on the field - or if our fans misbehaved off it - we might well be fined. Why should protestors be treated in a different manner? If you and I decided to stand outside Sheffield Town Hall waving placards protesting about something that would be our right and I doubt that SYP would spend a lot of money policing the protest. But if you and I organised a major protest which attracted 50,000 protestors, the police would provide a very significant presence. Why should we not receive a bill for the policing? If the protestors caused damage, why should we not be held liable? 'Everybody has the right to protest' is not the same as 'Everybody has the right to protest and the right to make other people pay to enable them to do so.' The behaviour of the police at protests does need to be reviewed and it appears that the police need very clear guidance on the tactics they may use. Perhaps it's also time to review the policy of providing free policing at protests. If a football club has top pay for policing, why shouldn't the organisers of a protest? If a football club is responsible for the (mis)behaviour of its fans, why shouldn't the organisers of a protest be responsible for the misbehaviour of their fans? Perhaps it's also time to review the policy of providing free policing at protests. If a football club has top pay for policing, why shouldn't the organisers of a protest? If a football club is responsible for the (mis)behaviour of its fans, why shouldn't the organisers of a protest be responsible for the misbehaviour of their fans? football is a commercial project, so, i guess, it's fair they pay. but you do have a point. protest is a democratic right, getting people charged for it would be a way of curtailing that process. This is just another example of the courts having to sort out the mess made by Parliament provide a more clear explanation of what Parliament intended to do. :hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 The met spokesman quoted in the article said they were appealing the decision because they feel they need guidance. Good decision. The court of appeal can set precedent and can give the police very clear guidance. Should they choose not to do so, then the matter will be referred to the House of Lords for a ruling. Ideally, of course, Parliament - which is supposed to make the law - should have provided the police with a clear set of rules in the first place. I'd have thought that that had already been done in a field in Runnymede nearly 800 years ago. "NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right." Whilst those activly protesting will probably only get a nominal sum of damages, I wouldn't mind betting that the "innocent" bystander, the pedestrian on the highway, people leaving or entering offices etc get a fairly chunky payout as they rightly should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 £80 for a D&D and I didn't even get a cup of tea. What the hell is wrong with the public sector! Did one of the middle managers at the police station forget to fill the form out authorizing a proper police officer to give me a warm drink? Did the risk assessment contain a spelling mistake? What I wan't to know is why do we spend twice as much on the police than we do on the fire brigade (through council tax precepts). I'd rather pay for a fellow man to save people from fires than to bother citizens for smoking the 'erb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted April 15, 2011 Author Share Posted April 15, 2011 £80 for a D&D and I didn't even get a cup of tea. What the hell is wrong with the public sector! Did one of the middle managers at the police station forget to fill the form out authorizing a proper police officer to give me a warm drink? Did the risk assessment contain a spelling mistake? What I wan't to know is why do we spend twice as much on the police than we do on the fire brigade (through council tax precepts). I'd rather pay for a fellow man to save people from fires than to bother citizens for smoking the 'erb. when was this, C? did you have to dry out overnight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 when was this, C? did you have to dry out overnight? Years ago, on a night out I was asked if I had anything on me I shouldn't have, I said I some cannabis, they couldn't find it. I was a bit drunk, so I called them idiots and laughed at them, I dug it out of the coat they'd just searched to prove my point, they offered to do me for possession cannabis and I protested so they did me for d&d instead Might aswell have arrested myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 many will. there a great ground swell of civil lawyers just waiting to stick it to the man. and, there's always the 'no-win-no-fee' animals:hihi: 'No win, no fee' doesn't mean that the losers side doesn't get paid. It means that the loser (who pays the fees for both sides) does so by means of an insurance policy which covers that event. The police are liable for wrongful arrest (See Wershof v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1978) but most of 'that great ground swell of civil lawyers' will be well aware that in Anns v Merton London Borough Council H.O.L [1978] per Lord Wilberforce; '[if a prima facie 'Duty of Care' arises...it is necessary to consider whether there are any considerations which ought to...reduce or limit ...the damages to which a breach of it may give rise ... Perhaps those who sued the police would win their case. Their legal costs would be paid by the losers the police) and they would be entitled to compensation for any losses or damage they had incurred and any injuries they had received. The purpose of compensation is to put the wronged party (as far as possible) back in the condition he as in had he not suffered the losses or injuries. - It is not to enrich the claimant. Each case is considered on its own merit and the courts are hardly likely to award damages which would put the metropolitan police in such a position that they would be unable to do their job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 [/b] So you are only allowed to protest if you are rich enough? And who decides the charges? the Police? Parliament? Presumably the charges would be set by the same people who set the charges for policing at football matches. The UKHRA says inter alia that you have the right to 'Freedom of expression' (the right to protest about something) Rights are usually accompanied by responsibilities. If you organise a march of 50,000 people, why should you not be held responsible for your actions? If those actions cause a considerable expenditure of public money, why should you not foot the bill? If you go and kick a ball around in a park, it won't cost you any money. If you organise a football match which attracts thousands of people, you will be required to pay for the policing. If you stand outside Sheffield Town Hall waving a placard, that won't cost you any money. If you organise a protest outside Sheffield Town Hall which attracts 20,000 protestors, why should somebody else have to pay? - You did it, you pay for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 I'd have thought that that had already been done in a field in Runnymede nearly 800 years ago. "NO Freeman shall be ... imprisoned, ... but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land.,." Not quite the same as 'Nobody shall be detained and held in one place by the police 'controlling' a demonstration'. The police seem to think they need detailed guidance and the case seems to suggest that they do. Wershof (#17) confirmed that the police can be held liable for wrongful arrest. The judges in this case found that the police had detained many people unlawfully. It seems quite clear (particularly given the comment by the police spokesman) that they do not understand if and when they can use kettling. Whilst those activly protesting will probably only get a nominal sum of damages, I wouldn't mind betting that the "innocent" bystander, the pedestrian on the highway, people leaving or entering offices etc get a fairly chunky payout as they rightly should. They are enttled to be compensated for the losses/damages incurred, they are not entitled to be made rich. They will also have to prove that they suffered losses /damages and to quantify those losses and damages. The London taxpayers suffered financial loss because of the protests. (They had to pay for the policing.) How do they recover their losses? Sheffield taxpayers suffered a significant financial loss recently through having to pay for policing at a party conference. Even the Lib Dems have human rights and those human rights do include 'Freedom of Assembly and Association'. How do the people of Sheffield recover their losses? Should the people of Sheffield pay (current situation) or should those who organised the protests pay? (They could always have a whip-around.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 The police don't have to put extra officers at the protest - they choose to. If they chose not to, if there was a riot, if people were injured and property (including, your car which was parked in the area) was damaged, would you say: 'Oh, that's OK then ... they chose not to provide additional policing. They didn't have to'. Or would you say 'Where the hell were the police? They knew something was going down..Why didn't they have adequate police available to stop the problems before they got started?' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.