Reid heckler accused under 2006 act

[agricola]

At what point in time did they say so and apologised? After they had done it, surely. So they did do it.

You originally said "at the time" and "later", which was clearly disengenous given that we are talking about five minutes of Wolfgangs' time, and they were wrong in detaining for that when there were already existing pieces of legislation.

I agree, but it winds me up when the police argue that using a power illegally means they did not use the power!

See above. Noone is saying they didnt use it, they used it incorrectly, there were already-existing pieces of legislation in force that applied to him going back inside, and they apologised to him once they realised their mistake. If you think that is a police state then you really need to read more.

 

[detective-boy]

That did not stop them from using those powers.

You cannot use something which does not exist. You can purport to do so, which seems to be what they did. But you cannot use them.

The incident is (constantly) being trotted out as an example of a power used to stifle political dissent. It is not. Because it cannot be used in the way purported.

If a rogue cop went out and shot a paedohile dead, claiming that the law allowed them to carry out a summary execution would NOT mean that the law did allow that at all. Would it?

 

[Divisive Cotton]

For those that didn't see this yesterday:

 

[detective-boy]

The police, at the very least, ATTEMPTED to use anti-terror legislation against this person.

Not "The police". Two ill-informed individual officers.

If Sussex Police had attempted to justify the action, if they had claimed that they had the power, which they did not, then you would have a point.

But they didn't. And you don't.

Let it go for fuck's sake. You don't need it. You're beginning to sound like Jazzz on a 9/11 thead ...

 

[detective-boy]

I've also cited the arms fair cases, which were authorised and will now also mention the Fairford cases which as far as I know were also authorised (although on that occasion the legality of the use of public order legislation at the same time was subsequently disputed by the Lords) <snip>

Have you read the first bit of my post number #66?

 

[detective-boy]

Has Charles Clarke been resurrected as Home Secretary ...

 

[TAE]

Not "The police". Two ill-informed individual officers.

Those two officers were acting in the name of the police.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Have you read the first bit of my post number #66?

Yes and in case my efforts so far have failed to make that clear, I broadly agree. I think that paragraph supports the point I'm trying to make so why wouldn't I agree?

I'm not the one getting hung up on the Wolfgang case. I can make the point I want to make with the Arms Fair and Fairford cases so I don't need to argue that you're wrong about Wolfgang, and in fact I'm quite sure that you're not. I think it's interesting that according to the Scotsman there were 600 other similar mistakes at the same time, but nothing in my argument hangs on that. Nor does any part of it hang on Darcus Howe's specific allegation that the Reid heckling was deliberately staged and the media briefed in advance about it.

I am concerned about the use of the more draconian powers, so for me the role of the various uses of sec. 44 against peaceful protestors is simply to show that at least some of this legislation has been so applied, which it clearly has. That then raises the concern that other, more far-reaching parts of it may be too.

Similarly the important thing for me in this case about the Reid incident was the use he made of it at the party conference. The Howe accusation is interesting, but it is not essential to show that the incident was staged to demonstrate that Reid made cynical political capital out of it.

 

[TAE]

If a rogue cop went out and shot a paedohile dead ...

... I would expect him to lose his job. I would not expect his actions to be described as a genuine mistake.

 

[TAE]

I am concerned about the use of the more draconian powers, so for me the role of the various uses of sec. 44 against peaceful protestors is simply to show that at least some of this legislation has been so applied, which it has.

Yes, let's concentrate on that.

 

[detective-boy]

... I would expect him to lose his job. I would not expect his actions to be described as a genuine mistake.

I will assume that because you don't actually address the point that I made you have no answer to it.

Welcome to ignore.

 

[TAE]

I really wonder how this 'detective' managed to do his job.

 

[Darios]

So.......

From The Independent January last year:

"....figures showed nearly 36,000 people were stopped and searched under the emergency powers last year. The number of people stopped and searched each year has soared since the Act came into force in 2001, when 10,200 people were stopped. It rose to 33,800 in 2003-04."

"...The Home Office revealed that people were being stopped at the rate of nearly 100 a day under the powers used to detain a peace campaigner, Walter Wolfgang, at last year's Labour Party conference."

Then there were the cases of the DSEi activists (already alluded to on this thread), one of whom, my friend Kevin Gillan, mounted a legal challenge:

"...Mr Gillan, 28, a PhD student from Sheffield who has been researching political protests, was among 140 people arrested under the Terrorism Act outside an international arms fair in 2003 in London's Docklands.

Mr Gillan said: "I was within sight of the Excel Centre when the police stopped me. They asked to search me and said it was under the Terrorism Act. A police officer went through my stuff and confiscated some bits of paper with details of other demonstrations. It took about 20 minutes.

"I was pretty amazed that they were using anti-terror legislation against protesters. The law is giving an incredible amount of power to the police. It is an exceptionally strong law. These are supposed to be extraordinary powers, not used all the time."

It's pretty clear that Bernie's overall point is correct. DB why are you focusing so much on disputing a particular cited instance when the evidence overwhelmingly supports the concerns raised by Bernie and others? Is point scoring more important than the issues at stake?

Incidentally, for those of you who didn't know, Kevin's challenge (along with Pennie Quinton and Liberty) was rejected.

 

[agricola]

Stop and search under the Terrorism Act has increased since 2001? I wonder why that is.

TAE,

... I would expect him to lose his job. I would not expect his actions to be described as a genuine mistake.

I would expect him to be banged up . The fact is though that Wolfgang was the victim of a mistaken use of s44, albeit an unnecessary one, and the appropriate action (a full apology) took place at the time.

 

[TAE]

Stop and search under the Terrorism Act has increased since 2001? I wonder why that is.

In case someone is carrying a plane in their pocket, clearly.

I would expect him to be banged up .

Indeed.

The fact is though that Wolfgang was the victim of a mistaken use of s44, albeit an unnecessary one, and the appropriate action (a full apology) took place at the time.

The point is that the officers were more than happy to use anti-terror legislation against him when they thought they could.

 

[detective-boy]

DB why are you focusing so much on disputing a particular cited instance when the evidence overwhelmingly supports the concerns raised by Bernie and others?

Because he's talking bollocks and (because he has been told so often) deliberately doing so.

I agree with the broad thrust of his argument about the use of the s44 Terrorism Act powers. As, if you had actually read my posts, you would know.

(ETA: Why are you not asking him why he persists in using an (at best) ambiguous example when there are loads of genuine examples of the point he is making available?)

 

[Bernie Gunther]

What precisely is the nature of this 'bollocks' DB? I'm not quite clear on that.

I had thought it was about Wolfgang, which I've dealt with, so what's still 'bollocks'?

 

[TAE]

The point is that the officers were more than happy to use anti-terror legislation against him when they thought they could.

If D.B. had not stuck his head in the sand, he would have seen this reply.

 

[nino_savatte]

That is fair ... but in the absence of meaningful identity checks there would be little to stop him making out he was someone else who had been invited. Police officers and Security Guards gave up carrying their "Observers Book of Dangerous Lunatics" many years ago ...

Nonetheless, current terror legislation offers a flag of convenience to the police. Though I am sure Reid wouldn't have gone anywhere without a battalion of minders.

 

[TAE]

I am sure Reid wouldn't have gone anywhere without a battalion of minders.

[speculation]Unless he knows that the terror danger is not as big as he claims[/speculation]

 

[nino_savatte]

[speculation]Unless he knows that the terror danger is not as big as he claims[/speculation]

 

[detective-boy]

What precisely is the nature of this 'bollocks' DB? I'm not quite clear on that.

It is you persisting to state that Walter Wolfgang was "detained" under the anti-terrorist legislation and using this as "proof" that the legislation allows it.

He wasn't.

Two officers mistakenly said they were using it.

They weren't. They couldn't. Because it did not apply.

That was swiftly explained.

Hence the incident is "NOT" proof that the legislation allows that action to be taken.

Why, oh why, do you persist in using it to support an argument which has far more reliable evidence available? As I asked before, are you obsessive? Or are you as guilty of spin and news management as those you despise so much, wanting to wring every last drop of sympathy out of the image of a poor old octagenarian buffer being manhandled?

 

[detective-boy]

Though I am sure Reid wouldn't have gone anywhere without a battalion of minders.

You ever seen a Cabinet Minister in a public place?

Clearly not, because the "battalion of minders" is a figment of your fevered imagination. At most there would be two or three SB Close Protection officers, one of whom would have been responsible for pre-visit risk assessment and an appropriate contingent of local police (almost always uniformed and unarmed) depending on the context (and for this sort of public meeting I would be very surprised if it were more than a sergeant and three or four constables). These officers would be there primarily to deal with any breach of the peace and would not usualy have any role in checking or searching people.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I think the Wolfgang case is interesting for two related reasons and perhaps its useful to be more precise about what they are.

Firstly, the guy was ejected from the nuLabour conference by burly stewards for heckling. This does not say anything about anti-terror laws but does say quite a lot about nuLabour's attitude to dissent, even from veteran members of their own party. Since the overall thrust of what I'm saying pertains to the propensity of the government for restricting inconvenient dissent, this incident is directly relevant to it.

Secondly, he was prevented from re-entering by some combination of police and stewards, and during the course of this was told that the police were acting under section 44 powers and given a section 44 slip. If I have got that wrong, then please do provide a factual correction, but that's my understanding based on the various accounts of the incident that I've read.

Now you quite correctly I believe, say that a) section 44 doesn't allow them to 'detain him', the words the police themselves used according to his MP John Austin, b) nor was the use of section 44 powers authorised in any case.

Now, you seem to think that this means the situation isn't relevant to anything but questions of police training or whatever and that I should shut up about it because you've told me to.

I happen to disagree with that though.

I think that if we're talking about the possibility of these powers being abused to restrict legitimate dissent then the inappropriate use of them as part of a wider incident in which I would happily agree stewards also played a significant role, to protect nuLabour from Walter Wolfgang's dissent is entirely relevant, even if an apology was issued afterwards.

I quite agree that the case is ambiguous in relation to the use of section 44 powers, but it's quite unambiguous in terms of nuLabour's attitude to dissent and in any case, in order to unambiguously show that these powers have been used with the appropriate authorisation to harass peaceful protestors, I have also cited the cases of the Arms Fair and Fairford.

 

[nino_savatte]

You ever seen a Cabinet Minister in a public place?

Clearly not, because the "battalion of minders" is a figment of your fevered imagination. At most there would be two or three SB Close Protection officers, one of whom would have been responsible for pre-visit risk assessment and an appropriate contingent of local police (almost always uniformed and unarmed) depending on the context (and for this sort of public meeting I would be very surprised if it were more than a sergeant and three or four constables). These officers would be there primarily to deal with any breach of the peace and would not usualy have any role in checking or searching people.

Oh, do fuck off and take your patronising tone with you. You can only view the world through the prism of your former occupation. You've also contradicted yourself here: the police act as minders...or perhaps you view the police as social workers.

 

[detective-boy]

I happen to disagree with that though.

You can do what you like.

The Walter Wolfgang incident is valid evidence in support of everything you post ... except that s.44 powers are used to silence dissent.

Other evidence of that is far, far more powerful.

If you persist in including it for that purpose, as you are perfectly at liberty to do, then I am afraid you will undermine my respect for anything else you argue.

 

[detective-boy]

Oh, do fuck off and take your patronising tone with you.

As someone who has actually worked in the sort of situation you have been discussing I thought you may be interested to know what actually happens.

But if you'd rather live in La-La land, then so be it.

I'm quite happy to fuck off and ignore your inane ramblings.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

You can do what you like.

The Walter Wolfgang incident is valid evidence in support of everything you post ... except that s.44 powers are used to silence dissent.

Other evidence of that is far, far more powerful.

If you persist in including it for that purpose, as you are perfectly at liberty to do, then I am afraid you will undermine my respect for anything else you argue.

So, all of this hystrionics and name-calling has actually just been about a bit of imprecise language in the post where I first mentioned Wolfgang on this thread, and despite the numerous other posts in which I explained clearly what I actually did think about that incident, including the one above, you're still banging on about it?

*shrug*

 

[nino_savatte]

As someone who has actually worked in the sort of situation you have been discussing I thought you may be interested to know what actually happens.

But if you'd rather live in La-La land, then so be it.

I'm quite happy to fuck off and ignore your inane ramblings.

You can't resist patronising me, can you? I guess it goes with the territory - non? The police still act as minders for government ministers on their speaking trips. I can't see anything wrong with that statement but, it seems, you can.

Are the police working on behalf of the state, yes or no?

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Here's a video of the Walter Wolfgang 'incident'.



The BBC report states 'He was detained by police under the 2000 Act'.

I can't see what point you're trying to make here, DB, but this:

Whilst I agree that the definition is (probably unintentionally) extremely wide-ranging

...is possibly the most naive, and certainly among the most stupid things I've ever seen you type.