Drink on Emirates flight and go to jail

Ellie Holman: criminal drinker. pic: The Guardian

A woman detained in the UAE after drinking wine on an Emirates flight has been released.

Ellie Holman from Kent was arrested after accepting a complimentary glass of wine on her flight to Dubai.  She says she was mistreated while in custody: she and her daughter were refused permission to go to the toilet for some time.

She was finally freed “on Sheikh Mohammed’s orders” and told she was welcome to go back to the UAE at any time.

Such mistreatment eh!  She’s not allowed to go to the toilet!  In the meantime, local criminals are getting flogged for alcohol consumption.  And that’s far from the worst that can happen: for some crimes you can expect to get death by stoning.

Maybe pampered tourists who cry when they can’t use the toilet should go on holiday somewhere else?  Maybe by going to the UAE and other countries under Sharia law, they are tacitly encouraging these medieval punishments? Then again, maybe not.  If you want to go to the UAE and expect to be immune from the local laws, you’ll probably be okay.  Western tourists aren’t usually punished for these crimes.  Or at worst expect to be deported.  Locals can expect the full fury of the law.  But that doesn’t matter, does it?  As long as you can enjoy a drink without any inconvenience…

Dealing with the police

I found this wonderfully uplifting article at  http://animalrightsuk.org/dealingwiththepolice.html (don’t worry, fellow carnivores, it’s not about meat it’s about protest). I’ve just stolen it verbatim, but the site does say “Anti copyrights, feel free to distribute”, so I’m distributing it. Under the same conditions: free (in all meanings of the word) to distribute. Don’t print it out and try to sell it (you won’t find many customers to make it worth your while anyway). Something you could do if your printer’s feeling all lonely and underused and you have loads of ink kicking around is print it and give it away at demos etc. If you do that, please include my url https://ihatehate.wordpress.com, and also http://animalrightsuk.org/ , that’s the url of the site I stole the article from.

Anyway, enough of my stealing, here’s what I stole…

General points
The most important thing to remember is that in general the police are not impartial. They are not interested in simply upholding the law and they are certainly not interested in upholding your rights; they are generally quite hostile to protestors. Years of collective experience have shown that the police generally consider it their job to stop you protesting if they can, or at least to make your protest less effective. Anything the police ask you to do or say at any time is for their benefit and not yours, and will often be detrimental to your interests.

The police are institutionally dishonest, and are full of dirty tricks. They will lie to try and convince you that your protest is illegal and that they have the power to stop you or move you. They will lie to try and convince you that you have to give them your details or that they have the power to search you. They will lie and exaggerate in statements to try and convict you of crimes you have not committed, and to cover up for themselves when they take unlawful action against you, such as unlawful arrests and stop and searches. The police lie most of the time. Most action taken by police against protestors is unlawful and is undertaken dishonestly and maliciously. These points cannot be emphasised enough, and they apply at all times: in the street, if you’re being raided, at the police station and in the courtroom.

Under these circumstances, the only sensible response is (1) non-cooperation with the police wherever possible, and (2) to assume that if a police officer is telling you something, he/she is lying. This applies during any contact you have with the police at any time. Don’t do anything the police tell you to do unless you have to. This applies especially if you’re under arrest and the police are very keen for you to do something (e.g. take a duty solicitor, talk during an interview, accept a caution, sign a piece of paper). If the police are putting pressure on you to do something, and making threats of what they’ll do if you don’t, this should set alarm bells ringing in your head. There’s a reason they’re keen for you to do it, so don’t do it (their threats will be empty threats). There are very few things that you have to do when a police officer tells you to, just the same as when anyone else tells you to do something. However, there are some circumstances where you have to comply with instructions from the police- see section 2.2. Therefore you should only do the things you have to do, and should not do anything you don’t have to do. Here are some examples, which apply in general (see here exceptions):

# If a police officer asks you to give them or show them something you are carrying, don’t.
# If a police officer tells you to stop filming him/her, carry on filming.
# If the police tell you to get out of your vehicle, don’t.
# If the police tell you to get in their vehicle, don’t.
# If the police ask to come into your house, don’t let them.
# If the police try and photograph you, turn and walk away.
# If a police officer tells you to sign something, don’t sign it.
# If a police officer tells you to go to them, stay where you are.
# If a police officer tells you to go somewhere, don’t go there.
# Unless you are being lawfully detained (e.g. for a stop and search, to use a police power to obtain your details, or you are under arrest; see section 2.2) you can lawfully walk or run away from the police.

Police will try to talk to you at a demonstration for one of four reasons: to give you an instruction or use some police power (such as arrest, stop and search, or gaining your details), to gain intelligence (under the guise of “friendly” conversation), to gain evidence against you to help them convict you, or to establish a rapport with you so that they can control you. If the police are talking to you, it’s for their benefit not yours, so don’t talk to them unless you have to. In general, you are under no obligation to speak to the police, or to answer any questions (see section 2.2 for exceptions). You can politely say you do not wish to speak to them, or you can remain silent. If you do have to talk to them, always record the conversation on video camera (see section 2.7 below). Do not engage in “friendly” chat with the police. In particular, respect other activists’ privacy: never discuss another person with the police. The police gain much of their intelligence from people who are willing to chat with them. What may seem like an irrelevant piece of information to you may be very important to the police. They want to know anything and everything they can find out about you and your friends. It is also important to remember that the police are not what you are there to fight against. If protestors become engaged in arguing with or talking to the police, this is a distraction from the purpose of the protest.

However, you will have to speak to the police if they are talking a lot of legal nonsense and telling you that you have to move, stop doing what you are doing or that they will arrest you; in other words if they are attempting to use their powers unlawfully. In these circumstances, a little legal knowledge can go a long way and you should calmly tell the police that they are talking nonsense- it is important not to become angry or aggressive. Remember to record any exchanges on a video camera. If they persist in talking nonsense, and they are attempting to use a police power unlawfully, it is best to stand up to them and not move or stop what you are doing, and not give your details when they ask. They may be bluffing; if so, you have won. If not, they will arrest you, but it will be an unlawful arrest and you may be able sue them (see section 5.2), in which case you have also won. Look upon unlawful arrests not so much as an inconvenience as a sound financial investment. However, it must be emphasised that you must be certain that the police are wrong, and you must record the arrest and the circumstances leading up to it on a video camera. Have the details of a friendly solicitor, or someone you know who has legal training/knowledge handy in case you need to take advice.

Non-co-operation with the police has its limits because there are some things that you have to do if the police tell you to, and not to do so is an offence…
Things Police Tell You To Do That You Have To Do
# If you’re actually under arrest, it’s an offence to actively resist or run away (sitting or lying down is passive resistance and is OK). Unless you are passively resisting, it also makes sense to get into a police vehicle if you’re under arrest. You are only under arrest once a police officer has touched you and told you you’re under arrest.

# Under certain circumstances the police have the power to give you directions as to where you must stand and how long you can remain there (for example under sections 12 and 14 of the POA 1986, and section 42 of the CJPA 2001, or if there is an injunction in place)

# There are certain circumstances where not to do what a police officer tells you to do constitutes the offence of obstruction of a police officer in the course of his duty (see under “Trespass” and “Breach of the Peace”).

Unfortunately, you also have to do the following (this list is not exhaustive):

# Stop your vehicle if you’re on a highway and the police signal you to stop (See under “Being stopped in a Vehicle”)

# Give your details in certain situations (see under “Giving Your Details”)

# Let the police search you in certain situations (see under “Stop and Search Powers”)

# Remove a face covering or give the police something they believe may be used as a face covering in certain situations (see under “Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (CJA)”).

# Let the police take your fingerprints, DNA and photograph if you’re under arrest

# There is one thing worth signing, and some bits of paper that you have to take, when you are under arrest (see under “Getting Arrested”), but don’t sign anything else, under arrest or otherwise.

Voluntary Exceptions to Non-Cooperation with the Police
There are also rare occasions when you might choose to talk to or co-operate with the police. These are:
# The police liaison person (see section 2.4).
# If someone commits some crime against you and you want to make a complaint. In general, such complaints don’t go anywhere and are a waste of time, but a few do succeed.
Police liaison person
Not withstanding the above, sometimes the police are not too hostile, and if this is the case, nominating a protestor as a police liaison person can be beneficial. When the police arrive, the police liaison person goes to meet them and introduces themselves in a friendly way. They may say something like, “Hello, I’m John and I’m the police liaison person today. Shall we just go over here where we can hear each other better for a chat?” They then take the police to one side. This takes the police away from the other protestors, who can carry on the protest and not be distracted by the police. The liaison person will then talk to the police about what they’re doing and say things like, “As you can see we’re just holding a peaceful and lawful protest against XXXXX, we’re not going to be causing any trouble, we won’t cause an obstruction, etc., etc.” This may take the police by surprise, and may make them behave much nicer towards you, and allow the protest to continue without disruption. The conversation must be recorded with a video camera. If the police start talking nonsense about what you can and cannot do and using their powers unlawfully, the liaison person can then argue (politely) with them, and the other protestors are not involved. Again this will only work if the police are not entirely hostile; if they are hostile, it will become obvious quite quickly and the police liaison approach can be abandoned. Then it’s back to the non co-operation approach as outlined in general points

Giving your details
The police will always want to know who you are and where you live. You do not have to give them your details except under a very few circumstances:

# if you are driving a vehicle and you have been stopped
# if you have been arrested (unless it’s to prevent a breach of the peace)
# if they reasonably suspect you of committing an offence and they want to report you for a summons or issue a fixed penalty (see below).
# if they reasonably suspect you of anti-social behaviour, which is defined as behaviour likely to cause alarm, harassment or distress. Anti-social behaviour differs from a section 5 POA 1986 offence in that it does not involve being threatening, abusive or insulting. Anti-social behaviour is not a criminal offence but suspicion of it does give police the power to require you to give them your details. Refusal to do so is an offence. This has been used to try and get protestors’ details, but remember that holding a peaceful and lawful protest is a guaranteed right and is not anti-social behaviour.

So, if you are just taking part in a peaceful demonstration, in general you do not have to give your details, and you should refuse. If they say that they need your details because they suspect you of an offence, ask them what offence they suspect you of, and on what grounds they suspect you. Normally they will come out with a load of nonsense, and you should challenge them on that. Police will often try do deal with minor offences by way of fixed penalty (on the spot fine) or summons, i.e. without arresting you, because they know that if they do this, if it turns out later that there is no case against you, you cannot sue them; you can only sue them if you have spent time in custody. If, however, they arrest you and then it turns out there is no case against you, you stand to make a lot of money by sueing them for false imprisonment, assault, interfering with your human rights and possibly malicious prosecution (see section 5.2). If they say you have to give your details because they suspect you of anti-social behaviour, you should ask what you have done that’s antisocial and what their evidence is, and remind them that peaceful protest is not anti-social behaviour. Normally when they say they suspect you of committing an offence or anti-social behaviour they are lying; they are merely trying to stop your protest and get your details.

Normally, we would recommend that you do not give your details if the police say they suspect you of an offence or of anti-social behaviour because the police usually do not have reasonable grounds to suspect protestors of these things. If you do not give your details, the police will either back down because they were bluffing all along (quite common), or they will arrest you for the suspected offence. However, it must be emphasised that it is only worth not giving your details and risking being arrested if you know the arrest would be unlawful and you can prove it, because then you may be able to sue them later (see section 5.2). It is important to video all arrests and the events leading up to them for this purpose (see section 2.7). The arrest is unlawful if they do not have reasonable grounds to suspect you of any offence, or of anti-social behaviour. You need to decide based on the circumstances whether or not the police have reasonable grounds to suspect you of these things. If they do have reasonable grounds, or if they don’t have reasonable grounds but you can’t prove it, you should give your details. Reasonable grounds for suspicion of an offence are that a genuine offence has been committed (i.e. not one dreamed up by the police by twisting the laws to suit their needs) and they have reasonable grounds to think you have committed it (for example they have a complaint about you from a member of the public, or the police witnessed you committing it themselves). If they suspect you of an offence and they arrest you because you do not give your details, you do not get yourself into any extra trouble, even if the arrest is lawful. However, if they have reasonable grounds to suspect you of anti-social behaviour, you commit an offence by refusing to give your details, so that one’s a bit more risky.

If you get a summons, you should normally plead not guilty, and you must get a solicitor as soon as possible. If you get a fixed penalty, don’t pay it. On the back of the penalty notice is a form you can send off to request a court hearing. Fill in and send this form; they may or may not send you a summons, to which you should normally plead not guilty.

Stop and search powers
Under normal circumstances, the police have no right to search you. The situations when they can search you are:
1. If they have reasonable grounds for suspecting that you are carrying stolen or prohibited articles or articles with a sharp point or blade. Prohibited articles are offensive weapons (articles made or adapted for causing injury or carried with the intention of causing injury) and articles made or adapted for use in committing burglary, theft, fraud or criminal damage or carried with the intention of committing these offences. (S1 PACE).
2. Police may search anyone they reasonably suspect to be a terrorist for evidence that he is a terrorist (Section 45 Terrorism Act 2000)
3. If a Section 60 (CJA) authorisation is in effect, police can stop and search anyone in the area covered by the authorisation. This can only be used if there is a risk of serious violence, and you can only be searched for offensive weapons.
4. If a Section 44 (Terrorism Act 2000) authorisation is in effect, police can stop and search anyone for items that could be used in connection with terrorism. They can search pedestrians, drivers and passengers in vehicles. However, S44 has been found to be illegal by the European Court of Human Rights and so should not be used.
The main point to remember here is that unless a section 60 or section 44 authorisation is in effect, the police must have some sort of reasonable suspicion that you are carrying something you shouldn’t be before they can search you. Searches of protestors are normally carried out unlawfully. Therefore challenge the police officer searching you. Ask them under what power they are searching you, and their reasons for searching you. If they are searching you under Section 1 of PACE, ask what they suspect you of carrying, and their grounds for suspicion. If you have been stopped and searched, you do not have to give your details (they will ask), but the police officer must give you a record of the search with his details and the reasons for the search. It’s best not to carry wallets or other personal items that will give the police your identity if you are searched. However, it may be wise to give your details if you want to make a complaint about the search later (see section 5.1). If you know that the search is unlawful and you can prove it, it is best not to co-operate with the search; if they arrest you for obstructing a police officer because of your non-cooperation, the arrest is unlawful and you may be able to sue the police. It is important to video all arrests and the events leading up to them for this purpose (see section 2.7). You can only be searched by an officer of the same gender as you.

Cameras

Video cameras will protect you against false and malicious allegations (from the police and members of public) and will prevent some of the excesses of police behaviour. They will also help you sue the police and make complaints (see section 5). The video camera is your friend; for most protests they are essential. We recommend recording all exchanges with police, community support officers, security guards, etc.; we do not talk to the police unless there is a camera rolling. It is also important to get a lot of general footage of the protest, both before and after the police arrive, to show what you were doing. In the past, we have been victimised by police to the extent that we have had to record the entire protest and everything that happened in order to protect ourselves from malicious allegations from the police. However, the police do not like having cameras pointed at them, precisely because it protects us and prevents them making up lies about us, telling us lies or abusing their powers. They will tell you that you’re not allowed to film them, that it’s against their human rights to photograph them without their permission, that it’s a security risk. These things are not true. They may threaten to seize the camera, but they are not allowed to do this unless they believe it contains evidence of an offence. They may try to physically stop you filming them, but this is an assault. You are allowed to video the police (or security guards, or community support officers or anybody else). However, beware of the following:
# Get the permission of the other protestors before you record them
# Be careful not to use tapes/memory cards that have material on from previous protests that you don’t want the police to see, in case you get arrested.
# If you are arrested with a camera, the police will seize it and retain it as evidence. It is therefore a good idea, if arrests take place, that the cameraperson avoids arrest if possible, for instance by complying with any police directions even if they are unlawfully imposed. If you are arrested with a camera, it may be possible to hand it to someone else before you get carted away.
# However, even if the cameraperson is not arrested, the police have the power to seize anyone’s camera if they believe it may contain evidence of an offence. The police often use this power dishonestly to confiscate any footage that might show they are acting unlawfully. Be aware that if people are videoed being arrested, the police may suddenly grab the cameraperson or their camera for this reason.

Being Stopped in a Vehicle
If you are driving a vehicle on a highway and a police officer signals you to stop, you must do so. The driver must give his or her details if the police ask for them. It is also sensible to answer questions related to the legality of your driving, e.g. whether you’re insured or not, etc., but do not answer other questions. However, no passengers are required to give their details (unless the police suspect them of an offence or anti-social behaviour) or speak to the police. The driver does not have to get out of the vehicle, or open their door or window more than is necessary to speak to the officer. Typically what happens when an activist’s vehicle is stopped is that the police will try to open the driver’s door and remove the key from the ignition. They may also try to open other doors. This is unlawful unless they are arresting someone or have power to stop and search the vehicle or people in it. Whenever you are stopped in a vehicle by the police, it is best therefore to lock all doors and remove the key from the ignition. Someone should video the incident from inside the vehicle. The driver should wind his or her window down about a couple of inches. If the window is opened any more, the police will reach inside and unlock the door. Let the driver do the talking; everyone else should stay quiet. The police may ask the driver for ID or driving documents, but you are not required to carry any. They will probably ask who owns the vehicle so if it is not yours, you must know who it’s registered to (it is sensible to answer this question). They may give you a ticket (known as a producer) that requires you to produce your licence, insurance certificate and MOT certificate at a police station within 7 days. Needless to say, any vehicle used for activism must be 100% legal and roadworthy.

The “right to be forgotten” bites thief in ass

So people who have done dodgy crap in the past have a “right to be forgotten”… meaning Google, Bing, etc have to delete links to stories about what crooks and conmen have got up to in the past. Basically, Google etc have to delete links to online stories that might “damage the reputation” of people who have done stupid and even criminal things they’ve done in the past.

But as Dan Gillmor has pointed out in the Guardian, it’s basically a charter for crooks and idiots to hide their stupidity and criminal actions, censoring their past so it looks like they’re not idiots or crooks… info that potential employers, new acquaintances and the like could well need to know. Are you going to enter into business with someone whose ineptness or criminal behaviour is public knowledge? Probably not. But now people will be employing unsuitable people.

But what’s funny about this charade is the fact that the “right to be forgotten” by Google will mean other news outlets will report on these secretive idiots. Check out the story on Robert Daniels-Dwyer. He wanted Google to remove links to reports that he was was convicted of trying to steal £200 worth of Christmas presents from Boots in Oxford in 2006. Google removed the links… but the Oxford Mail’s editor, Simon O’Neill, argued that it is “an assault on the public’s right to know perfectly legitimate information,” and Dwyers’ naughty past has been re-publicised far more than it would have been before the ruling! The Oxford Mail’s editor, Simon O’Neill, argued that it is “an assault on the public’s right to know perfectly legitimate information.”

Check out the original Oxford Mail story here. If the idiot had kept his gob shut, no one would have known about it… it was in 2006 for goodness’ sake!

Calling it a “right to censorship”, editor O’Neill continued: “It is an attempt to re-write history… We often get complaints from convicted criminals that publishing stories about them invades their privacy or is unfair but the simple fact is if they didn’t go out committing crime and appearing in court then there would not be a story.”

The Guardian reported:

The paper reported that Daniels-Dwyer had previously attempted to have the story removed from the Mail’s websites via a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission.

He demanded that Newsquest “should purge the article from all databases, internally and externally available, and from any news databases to which it provides content.”

Two factual amendments were made to the article, but the PCC dismissed his case.

If Daniels-Dwyer was the complainant to Google then it has rebounded on him because the 2006 story has got renewed, and extra, publicity – a direct consequence of all such complaints about online coverage (see the Streisand effect).

The right to be forgotten could well turn out to be the right to be remembered.

So it looks like Daniels-Dwyer has well and truly screwed himself! Ha ha ha!!

Racial profiling is alive and well, goddammit… and that’s with the public, never mind the police!

Do you think police profiling works?  You think racial profiling works?  You think racism is a good way to spot criminals?  Check this out, then tell me in Comments what you think.

 

CPS drop case against Iceland skip-divers as “not in public interest” anymore…

In my original post on this issue I wrote “you couldn’t make this stuff up!” And reality goes on to prove I’m right!

The Guardian reported that the CPS was going to prosecute 3 men for “stealing” out-of-date tomatoes, mushrooms and cheese from a skip round the back of a branch of Iceland, after a member of the public told the police he’d seen them climbing over the wall. The Crown Prosecution Service were intent on prosecuting the “thieves” even though Malcolm Walker, the chief executive of Iceland, had asked the CPS not to continue with the case. In a statement, Iceland said “We are currently trying to find out from the Crown Prosecution Service why they believe that it is in the public interest to pursue a case against these three individuals.”

One of the men, freelance web designer Paul May was going to say that he was taking the food because he needed it to eat and does not consider he has done anything illegal or dishonest in removing food destined for landfill from a skip.

This is hardly the first time the CPS have tried to prosecute people for taking out-of-date food from supermarket skips. Many years ago, two of my friends were arrested with chickens they had taken from a Leo’s (now the Co-operative) supermarket bin. They were charged with theft, elected for trial by jury at Crown Court as was their right, and the presiding judge threw out the case, angry that the court’s time was being wasted in such a way.

In this latest case, the CPS originally said there was “significant public interest” in prosecuting the three men caught last year taking tomatoes, mushrooms, cheese and Mr Kipling cakes from the dustbins behind a branch of Iceland. But a public furore persuaded them to see sense.

The case would have brought to the public eye the fact that poor members of society have to go through bins of rotten food looking for something to assuage their hunger, in scenes more reminiscent of the 19th century rather than the present day.

The case has prompted new focus on the phenomenon of “skipping” – taking discarded supermarket waste to cook and eat – and reopened the debate over how much supermarket food is still discarded. Several online petitions were launched, calling on the CPS to reconsider its decision to prosecute.

Baljit Ubhey, the chief crown prosecutor for CPS London, said: “This case has been reviewed by a senior lawyer and it has been decided that a prosecution is not required in the public interest.”

He added: “In reconsidering this case, we have had particular regard to the seriousness of the alleged offence and the level of harm done. Both of these factors weigh against a prosecution. Additionally, further representations received today from Iceland Foods have affected our assessment of the public interest in prosecuting.

“We hope this demonstrates our willingness to review decisions and take appropriate and swift action when necessary. The Crown Prosecution Service is committed to bringing the right charges to court when – and only when – it is proper to do so.”

But of course Ubhey’s explanation is a load of crap. As I reported before, the CPS have considered it correct to prosecute hungry poor people for taking out-of-date food from shop waste bins. The CPS originally valued the food “stolen” from Iceland at £33! And they would no doubt have carried on the case if online petitions hadn’t been produced.

All this case demonstrates is that the police and Crown Prosecution Service are happy to oppress the very poorest members of society.

EDIT: Since posting this, a couple of my friends suggested I might like to see the Daily Mail’s take on this story.  I don’t usually bother reading the Mail (it makes me so furious sometimes, there have been occasions in the past where I have actually shouted at a copy of the paper) but my friends’ comments intrigued me so I had a peek.

I was just about to type “Unbelievable!” but then I remembered: this is the Mail.  The story’s headline reads

A licence to steal? Let off, the ‘freegans’ who raided supermarket bins for £33 of cakes, cheese and mushrooms

The Mail clearly has a problem with “freegans” (their term for the criminals who blatantly steal unwanted garbage out of bins); their angle on the story is horror that such evil crooks are being set free to continue their crime sprees.  They mention that 15 million tons of food are being thrown away each year in the UK, Tesco alone generated 28,500 tons of food waste at its stores and distribution centres in the first 6 months of last year alone, but the Mail’s major problem is the fact that people are being “encouraged” to steal by the CPS’s decision to drop the charges.

Interestingly, they also mention that the three men involved (Paul May, Jason Chan and William James) were held in police cells for nineteen hours before being released!   I hadn’t seen or heard that anywhere else.  It shows how petty and arrogant the police can be, and is another reason why the police do not automatically deserve the respect they think they are due.  Basically, the police stink.  And to think, I wouldn’t have learnt this particular fact but for the Daily Mail’s website.  Keep an eye out for low-flying pigs ha ha!!!

CPS prosecute 3 men for “stealing” rubbish out of Iceland’s bins!

UPDATE: CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE SHAMED INTO DROPPING CHARGES!

Unbelievable but true: check it out.

A man will stand trial next month after being caught taking some tomatoes, mushrooms and cheese from the dustbins behind a branch of Iceland.

It is expected Paul May, a freelance web designer, will argue that he was taking the food because he needed it to eat and does not consider he has done anything illegal or dishonest in removing food destined for landfill from a skip.

Even Iceland, the “victim” of the crime, doesn’t understand why this is going on. The chief executive of Iceland has said he has contacted the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to ask why three men caught taking food from bins outside an Iceland store are being taken to court, stating that the company did not seek their prosecution.

I can remember, years ago, when I was squatting/homeless and frequently went skipping so as to avoid starvation, 2 friends of mine were arrested after stealing chickens that had been thrown out into the skip by Leo’s (now “The Co-operative”). They were charged with theft. They pled not guilty and elected for Crown Court trial, as was their right. The judge threw the case out, furious that the CPS would waste his court’s time with a case of stealing rubbish! Yes, I know that technically the rubbish still belonged to the Co-op… but out of date chickens? I can’t believe the CPS still do this! As for the Co-op, with its “ethical” underpinnings… Gah!

So it’s in the public interest to prosecute hungry people for taking waste foodstuff out of the bin? Good to now… how our corporate overlords (did I say “overlords”? I meant “protectors”) think. Actually, yeah, feed the poor on Soylent Green! Perfect solution to the problem of homelessness and poverty!

Oh, yeah! I just wanted to add: not long after the palaver, a local day centre for homeless and vulnerable people MAGGS Day Centre, Worcester) asked Leo’s (now the Co-operative) if the supermarket might like to donate this waste food to the day centre, to help keep the vulnerable from starvation. Leo’s said no: but the day centre could buy the out of date trash! Seriously, you couldn’t make this stuff up!

EDIT: Our chums at 38Degrees are on this too. Check out their piece and petition here. Maybe the CPS think it’s okay now to brutalize the defenceless, as their lords and masters are up to the same crap. We gotta tell ’em: Nooo!! Online petitions are often a waste of time, but some of them actually achieve stuff! If you check out 38Degrees you’ll see that they frequently help mitigate or even stop some of our government’s most evil plans. I like 38Degrees; so should you!

 

.

Police shoot unarmed Aboriginal teenagers in Sydney – New South Wales police minister, Mike Gallacher, defends the action

The Guardian tells us: “Civil liberties groups have called for an independent inquiry into the shooting of two Aboriginal teenagers in Sydney’s busy Kings Cross nightlife area at the weekend.”  They’d been joyriding, and mounted a crowded pavement in the early hours of Saturday morning, hitting two women.  But they were unarmed, surrounded by cops with guns, they weren’t going anywhere.  So why shoot them?  Well-known Aboriginal figure, Anthony Mundine, said: “I feel that it’s brutality at its best. Who shoots teenage kids, unarmed, cornered, trapped, ready to be arrested?”  But the New South Wales police minister, Mike Gallacher, retorted:

“Cops had seconds to make a decision. If someone’s not going to stop the car … and you’ve got a young woman on the front of the vehicle, you know, until such times as shown otherwise, I’m going to back the cops.”

Australia is one of the most racist countries in the world.  Even the USA try to appear as if they’re sorry about what they did to their indigenous population.  But Oz politicians seem to regard “black fellas” as legitimate targets for full-on violent tactics.  And the white Australian population as a whole aren’t much better, treating Aboriginal people as second or even third-class citizens, making them feel like illegal immigrants in their own country.

Okay, you can’t change the past.  What’s done is done.  But you can change what you do about the past.  And you can learn from your mistakes, quit treating Aboriginals as somehow less than human.  If Australia doesn’t sort its act out pronto, they’re gonna reap the whirlwind.

A demonstrator at a rally outside the New South Wales parliament protesting against the shooting of two teenagers in Sydney. Photograph: William West/AFP/Getty Images

Rioters say anger with police fuelled summer unrest

The London School of Eonomics and the Guardian have released the results of a study that asked people involved in the riots across England this summer why they rioted.  You can check it out here.

A lot of commentators think the report is worthless because it simply consists of criminals blaming the police for their own criminal activity.  I can understand why readers might think this – but I also thiink these critics are wrong.

This study is important and interesting simply because it listened to the perpetrators for once instead of focusing on the victims. If we want to know why the rioters why they rioted, we have to ask them, not their victims. Their stated reasons/excuses may well be after-the-event self-justification, but if we poke about in the bullcrap we will find some important facts.

For one, “gangs” had little/nothing to do with the rioting. So we can see the lie in the government’s attempts to use the riots as evidence why anti-gang legislation is necessary.

The stop-and-search angle is also important. Let’s not forget that the vast majority of those stopped and searched by the police are not convicted of any crime uncovered by the searches. These police actions are, probably accurately, perceived by poor young people as harassment or even provocation.

Rather than looking at the report for excuses, let’s look for reasons. There’s nothing wrong in searching for the truth.

Worryingly, the report says there might be more riots to come.  Apparently, four out of five participants in the summer unrest think there will be a repeat of the violence.  This might be just the bravado of youth; then again, it could be a prediction straight from the horse’s mouth.  It’s certainly something that deserves the attention.  But so do the poverty and the biased policing that certainly helped fan the flames of August.

4 years for “inciting” non-existant riots… WTF are the British authorities up to?

Yesterday (16 August 2011) Chester crown court sentenced 2 men to 4 years imprisonment for “trying” to incite riots that never actually happened. And David Cameron, who is supposed to be the prime minister of Britain, not a judge or legal commentator, said it was “very good”, adding:

“What happened on our streets was absolutely appalling behaviour and to send a very clear message that it’s wrong and won’t be tolerated is what the criminal justice system should be doing.”

Of course it’s terrible that riot and looting went on across England. But what do the riots that actually happened have to do with what Jordan Blackshaw and Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan did? Moreover, Blackshaw and Sutcliffe-Keenan pleaded guilty to the charges – which makes me wonder what kind of low-grade legal advice they’d been given – and an early guilty plea is supposed to result in a reduced sentence. So this pair of clowns would have got maybe 10-year sentences if they’d pleaded not guilty? 10 years for not inciting a riot? What are our judges smoking before entering their court rooms?

MPs and civil rights groups have spoken out against the sentences, unsurprisingly. But what should be surprising is that prime minister Cameron said the sentences were “very good” – before adding that it is down to the courts to decide sentences. So, which is it, Cameron? Do judges have the discretion on sentencing here? Or are you sending (barely) concealed message to the court that anyone who says anything not in line with his beliefs deserves to rot in jail for as long as possible?

In Britain, the government proposes laws. Parliament debates, fine-tunes then passes the laws. And the police and courts enforce those laws. Cameron shouldn’t be telling judges how to do their jobs. Lord Carlile, the government’s former terror advisor accused ministers of appearing to “steer” the courts into handing down the more stringent sentences. Lord Carlile, a barrister and former Liberal Democrat MP warned that the sacrosanct separation of powers between the government and the judiciary had appeared to have been breached by some of the messages coming out of government since the riots engulfed neighbourhoods last week.

Fortunately, not all judges have been castrated by Cameron and his henchmen. The same Evening Standard article reports that a court in Bury St Edmund’s let a teenager walk free after his guilty plea. He had sent Facebook messages saying “”I think we should start rioting – it’s about time we stopped the authorities pushing us about. It’s about time we stood up for ourselves for once so come on riot – get some – LoL” Bad, to be sure, but hardly evil. His barrister said his client “had been a bit of a prat” – which pretty sums up Blackshaw’s and Sutcliffe-Keenan’s actions too.

Also, a Lambeth teenager who had been caught on CCTV hurling sticks and spades at officers, was allowed to walk free after his uncle, a Premier League football player, offered him somewhere to live outside of London.

This variation in judicial decisions is good, as it demonstrates that not all judges are bowing and scraping before their governmental overlords. But it is clear that a substantial number of judges are all too keen to please their masters. In the Guardian, Lord Carlile said:

“I don’t think it’s helpful for ministers to appear to be giving a steer to judges. The judges in criminal courts are mostly extremely experienced and well capable of making the decisions themselves. Ministers should focus on securing the safety of the public.”

The lord, who served for six years under Labour and the coalition until March as the government’s anti-terror adviser, added: “”Some judges may feel that and some ministers may feel that they have had a responsibility to use the language of sentences rather than policy.”

The authorities doubtless think it’s important to stamp down hard on some people’s recent behaviour. But that doesn’t mean the courts should become kangaroo courts blindly following the government’s instructions. Every single case is different, and each should be dealt with on its own merits. The government is beginning to see the consequences of its actions and policies; and they are scared of those consequences. Instead of knee-jerk reactions, they should try to fix the damage they have done. Otherwise today’s Britain will be just like the 1980s, when widespread civil unrest rocked the country.

_gos=’c4.gostats.com’;_goa=354450;
_got=2;_goi=2;_goz=0;_gol=’Free hit counter’;_GoStatsRun();

Free hit counter

Question: Who is/are “Anonymous”? Answer: No one/everyone.

Just read about the “hacker group” Anonymous’ release of apparently incriminating emails from the Bank of America. This story really annoys me. Not because I’m a Bank of America fan – I’m pissed off with the Guardian for describing Anonymous as a “hacker group”.

The Wikipedia article on Anonymous. describes it well – it says:

is an Internet meme originating 2003 on the imageboard 4chan, representing the concept of many on-line community users simultaneously existing as an anarchic, digitized global brain.[1] It is also generally considered to be a blanket term for members of certain Internet subcultures, a way to refer to the actions of people in an environment where their actual identities are not known.

Anonymous is not a hacker group in the sense you’d usually expect: there’s no organization, no hierarchy, no agreed agenda. Anyone with the required know-how and/or tools can do some cyber-vandalism or cut-and-paste someone’s email, then say it was done by Anonymous.

So who is Anonymous? Everyone. No one. Me. You. Anyone. Please bear that in mind next time you see a report that “Anonymous” did something.

_gos=’c4.gostats.com’;_goa=354450;
_got=2;_goi=2;_goz=0;_gol=’Free hit counter’;_GoStatsRun();

Free hit counter