sort of victory for fairford types

[freethepeeps]

Maybe 'wrong' was the wrong word, but IMO the people who went for the JR were right to do so, as shown by the outcome.

One person at the main meeting (who abstained) and a number since have suggested this was the wrong thing to do (as lots of others believed before thoroughly discussing their concerns) and I think these people are therefore 'wrong'.

icepick asked why they were pissed off, I was replying.

So, what has the JR, in your opinion achieved?

 

[The Black Hand]

Maybe 'wrong' was the wrong word, but IMO the people who went for the JR were right to do so, as shown by the outcome.

One person at the main meeting (who abstained) and a number since have suggested this was the wrong thing to do (as lots of others believed before thoroughly discussing their concerns) and I think these people are therefore 'wrong'.

icepick asked why they were pissed off, I was replying.

Monty has already pulled you (or people like you) up for your description of events leading up to the JR - your meeting was held AFTER the other one decided the opposite... As it happens I've had a brief look at the ruling and I still don't think you were right to do so After all, the point is that the police break the law & JR 's mean fuck all, especially in crisis situations when emergency powers come in. THough on plenty of occasions short of the emergency powers the police have shown themselves willing to break the law. Oh liberals, if only your rulers respected the law as much as you do

 

[flimsier]

Just to clarify. I wasn't there. I've just been interested in the case and have heard reports back.

Monty left the meeting before the discussion.

You've not said anything the negative the JR has resulted in. The publicity in itself is a good thing.

 

[Pickman's model]

Maybe 'wrong' was the wrong word, but IMO the people who went for the JR were right to do so, as shown by the outcome.

eh? the ends justify the means? i'm fucking chuffed they got a remotely reasonable ruling: this does not justify undertaking a risky legal strategy, which if it had resulted in a slightly different judgment could easily have resulted in these tactics being used - quite lawfully, and without legal recourse - against all sorts of people. to be frank, i don't believe that the result, which is by no means final, in any way justifies the risks inherent in pursuing going for a judicial review.

 

[lost property]

Er, Black Hand, to clarify. There were two legal meetings after March 22 last year. The first was to discuss the options. A lot of the meeting was taken up with people saying what had happened to them on the day. Interesting enough, but fairly repetitive and took up a lot of time.

There was a decision to meet the following week, with people turning up with more info about the different options as there were discrepancies between the views of the two solicitor firms consulted (Bindmans and Moss & Co).

The second meeting was the one to decide legal strategy.

After a lot of discussion it was decided that we seemed to have nothing to lose. If we lost, the police carry on doing what they always do.

Well, we won on detention and have had some very favourable media coverage highlighting the human rights abuses that go on in the so-called "free world". We did lose on being turned away from the demo, but we can appeal, and in the meantime, the police continue to try and frustrate our ability to protest.

The ruling definitely has implications for the May Day cases. We were "only" detained for a few hours. Whereas people were kept in Oxford Circus for much longer.

The judges confined themselves to dealing with the facts of the Fairford case, I assume, because it would not have been possible to do much more within the time set aside for the hearing (a day and a half).

They spent a long time on Article 5 (Right to Liberty & Security) and the circumstances under which this freedom can be denied - see paras 44, 45 & 46 of the ruling and the Human Rights Act to unravel it.

They ruled that detention, for those suspected of having committed an offence or about to abscond, "cannot be for long" to comply with Art 5(1)(c). How long this can happen, without arrest, depends on the facts of the case.

But read para 47. He says (I think, although the grammar is confusing) that "even if there had been an immediately apprehended breach of the peace to justify transitory detention...the circumstances and length of the detention...were wholly disproportionate to the apprehended breach of the peace."

Anyway, I think it will affect the May Day cases and the Met's barrister certainly seemed more concerned than Glos's barrister about appealing.

 

[Pickman's model]

Er, Black Hand, to clarify. There were two legal meetings after March 22 last year. The first was to discuss the options. A lot of the meeting was taken up with people saying what had happened to them on the day. Interesting enough, but fairly repetitive and took up a lot of time.

There was a decision to meet the following week, with people turning up with more info about the different options as there were discrepancies between the views of the two solicitor firms consulted (Bindmans and Moss & Co).

The second meeting was the one to decide legal strategy.

After a lot of discussion it was decided that we seemed to have nothing to lose. If we lost, the police carry on doing what they always do.

eh? one meeting "to discuss the options" and one to "decide legal strategy"? there were only three options! first, to do nothing. second, to sue the police (whether individually or en masse) or to go for a judicial review. a judicial review could only be an interim step towards suing for damages: and had it gone entirely against us, it would have made suing the police for this - or any future similar detention - impossible. it was a high risk strategy, which i don't feel was worth the risk.

but what this second meeting sounds like is an entire reversal of the conclusions of the first!

Anyway, I think it will affect the May Day cases and the Met's barrister certainly seemed more concerned than Glos's barrister about appealing.

can precendents, or judicial review judgments, apply retrospectively? i doubt it!

 

[lost property]

Not really sure what the problem is here. But to answer pickman's:

eh? one meeting "to discuss the options" and one to "decide legal strategy"? there were only three options!

I don't know what kind of meetings you go to, but trying to reach a consensus between thirty or so people takes a fair while. There was no consensus reached at the first meeting, which is why people agreed to go away and come back with more info. It's hardly the fault of the grey-haired (and not so grey) "liberals" if all those against JR excluded themselves from the second meeting and didn't pass their wishes on to someone who did attend.

On the point about "high risk strategy" are you just talking about the risk of foregoing damages if the JR was lost? Or about the risk of setting a precedent in law?

I was just pissed off with the number of times I was on a demo and the police seemed to be getting away with preventing people from demonstrating. I'm glad of all the coverage because if nothing else it publicises the fact that this happens. It happened in the Jubilee Bus case and the Met decided to settle, rather than get an unfavourable ruling.

Yes, there are arguments that the police will probably find other ways to stifle protest, but I'm in no doubt that the Met were very concerned about the impact the Fairford JR would have on them. This means they clearly think it will have an impact on how they behave in future and/or that it will have an impact on the May Day cases.

As for your comment:

can precendents, or judicial review judgments, apply retrospectively? i doubt it!

The May Day/Oxford Circus cases won't be heard until June. The JR was a clarification of how the Human Rights Act interacts with common law powers to prevent a breach of the peace. The Human Rights Act was already part of domestic law on May Day 2001 and the police should have taken it into consideration then just as they should have done on 22 March last year, so the notion of the ruling being "retrospective" doesn't apply.

 

[flimsier]

You knows it, LP. Great post, safe [/kidspeak]

 

[flimsier]

Sorry, just to make it clear, I think that really was a great post.

 

[Pickman's model]

On the point about "high risk strategy" are you just talking about the risk of foregoing damages if the JR was lost? Or about the risk of setting a precedent in law?

both the damages and the precedent.

 

[lost property]

both the damages and the precedent.

Ok, well my argument remains that there is no risk with the legal precedent as the police regularly turn people away from demos, as well as detaining them to prevent a breach of the peace. We are merely setting a marker in the ground.

Are you seriously saying that the judgement as it stands will make policing of demos worse for protestors? IMHO, policing of demos in the last few years has been almost unbearable. If you're not prepared to stand in a small enclosed space behing a metal barrier, then you end up being surrounded by cops. The judgement has now put some parameters on this.

I'm not saying this is a huge victory, but it is a victory. And it's always good to have a bit of good news doing the rounds.

As for it screwing people's compensation, that argument doesn't wash either. If the judges in the Judicial Review wouldn't rule that the detention was unlawful, why would it be ruled worthy of damages in a civil claim?

As it happens, even the Met's official line was that the detention on the coaches didn't constitute a lawful containment, so it was very unlikely that we would have lost outright.

Nor can it be reasonably argued that the JR is delaying compensation. IF we go to appeal, it might delay compensation by another year, but compare that to the May Day cases which have taken over three years to get to court. The police only settled very recently over the Jubilee Bus case and that was probably to get it in before our JR ruling, as well as avoid a ruling themselves. (Just a reminder that it isn't just JR's that set precedents.)

 

[The Black Hand]

Lost property said "It's hardly the fault of the grey-haired (and not so grey) "liberals" if all those against JR excluded themselves from the second meeting and didn't pass their wishes on to someone who did attend." Of course they share responsibility - was their somebody else in the room taking all these elitist decisions? You can't make 'collective decisions' with the other sides' arguments not there.

I hear all your points about it being a 'victory' - leaves a sour taste in my mouth mind.

Unlike the jubilee bus 23... I can't see how the detention on the bus in transit in this case would have led to legal precedent either, if you were dropped off the bus early you were in the cells so time wise it was nothing. The police were fucked in that case cos they ignored the law regarding arrest for breach of the peace, not over the time it took.

 

[Pickman's model]

Ok, well my argument remains that there is no risk with the legal precedent as the police regularly turn people away from demos, as well as detaining them to prevent a breach of the peace. We are merely setting a marker in the ground.

if the police "regularly" deny people the right to free assembly and the right to demonstrate, you can presumably give me a few examples of that. there is "no risk" now as regards the legal ruling: but what if the court had ruled that the police had acted fairly and lawfully? would you be happy being involved in a case which established a ruling detrimental to the interests of protestors?

Are you seriously saying that the judgement as it stands will make policing of demos worse for protestors? IMHO, policing of demos in the last few years has been almost unbearable. If you're not prepared to stand in a small enclosed space behing a metal barrier, then you end up being surrounded by cops. The judgement has now put some parameters on this.

no: i did not say or mean to intimate that the judgment as it stands would be inimical to the interests of demonstrators. how do you suggest it makes it any better? there were "some parameters" on the enclosure of demonstrations before - logistical ones leap unbidden to mind - now there may be new ones.

As for it screwing people's compensation, that argument doesn't wash either. If the judges in the Judicial Review wouldn't rule that the detention was unlawful, why would it be ruled worthy of damages in a civil claim?

eh? had the judges ruled for the police, then where would compensation claims be founded? if the police were found to have acted lawfully and properly, where would the basis for a compensation claim have been? ffs! how hard did you work at being this arsy?

As it happens, even the Met's official line was that the detention on the coaches didn't constitute a lawful containment, so it was very unlikely that we would have lost outright.

er... did the met put people in the coaches and did the met initiate the entire thing? i think not! my claim, and i imagine yr's, will be against gloucestershire police, in the first instance, with perhaps (i'm not yet sure) subordinate claims against the other constabularies for carrying out an unlawful order. any liability or oppobrium which may attach to the met as far as i'm concerned would be minor.

Nor can it be reasonably argued that the JR is delaying compensation. IF we go to appeal, it might delay compensation by another year, but compare that to the May Day cases which have taken over three years to get to court. The police only settled very recently over the Jubilee Bus case and that was probably to get it in before our JR ruling, as well as avoid a ruling themselves. (Just a reminder that it isn't just JR's that set precedents.)

how do you square the firat two sentences in that paragraph, which seem to contradict each other? and i am not too fussed about the speed with which other people get their compensation. the police, as you note, settled recently with the lucky people from the jubilee - i would hope that legal antix don't unduly delay my own compensation.

 

[lost property]

Ok, you've lost me a bit here. I sincerely think that there was little more we could have done that meeting to be inclusive - ask anyone that bothered to stay for the meeting.

Lost property said "It's hardly the fault of the grey-haired (and not so grey) "liberals" if all those against JR excluded themselves from the second meeting and didn't pass their wishes on to someone who did attend." Of course they share responsibility - was their somebody else in the room taking all these elitist decisions? You can't make 'collective decisions' with the other sides' arguments not there.

1. I can't be accountable for someone else's unwillingness to make their opinion heard. As long as that there is a forum for people to express their opinion and that forum is properly publicised, I'm not sure if much more can be done. In this case, everyone who had been at the previous meeting knew the details of the meeting, and it was also passed round a number of email lists.

2. Not being psychic, I certainly had no idea that a bunch of people who had the same view point had decided not to come to the meeting (or to walk out before the beginning) without passing their views on to someone else to put forward on their behalf. In fact, I would never have known, unless I had read about it on these boards.

I hear all your points about it being a 'victory' - leaves a sour taste in my mouth mind.

Maybe you've got a lemon in your mouth . But, assuming people get their compensation (not such a big assumption), not sure how the JR is less of a celebration than the Jubilee case.

Unlike the jubilee bus 23... I can't see how the detention on the bus in transit in this case would have led to legal precedent either, if you were dropped off the bus early you were in the cells so time wise it was nothing. The police were fucked in that case cos they ignored the law regarding arrest for breach of the peace, not over the time it took.

I'm not sure what bus you're talking about here. Or what point you're trying to make. The circumstances of the bus and coach cases aren't the same, and I don't think I've said that.

The judges ruled in the Fairford case that the police could not detain us at all for breach of the peace as there was not an imminent breach of the peace (para 47: "there was no immediately apprehended breach of the peace by her sufficient to justify even transitory detention"). However, they said that in some circumstances transitory detention could be justified, but it would have to be very brief.

So, in our case, the police also ignored the law regarding breach of the peace.

While I'm here, I might as well say that people need to make clear what their views are for going for an appeal. We have a public meeting at SOAS on Thursday night and you might want to come along to that if you were on the coaches and want to make your point. (I'n not just talking about TBH).

If you can't make the meeting, then please PM me if you want to talk about it further.

Cheers.

 

[lost property]

ffs! how hard did you work at being this arsy?

Actually I think I was born this way.

Anyway, you have sneaked this post in while I was responding to TBH's post and now I don't have time. I'm not going to list all the demos I've been on, but please don't try and tell me you've never been present when a copper has abused his/her position, threatened arrest for basically nothing etc, stopped you from getting somewhere for no good reason. I'm not saying that we should concern ourselves solely with these legalistic games, it's just one tactic.

If the courts had ruled that the police had acted fairly and lawfully, then they get to continue doing what they have been doing anyway. I would have been a bit gutted, but not really as wouldn't expect much more from judicial system. I really don't get what's lost.

Am a bit confused about your point about compensation claims. On what grounds would you have been suing for damages?

 

[Pickman's model]

theft, for a start.

and can you name a couple of times the police have turned people away from demonstrations?

 

[888]

I was there, but I'd rather be detained for 6 hours than attend a legal meeting. Or read anything with legal terms in it, so I still have no idea what the situation is.

 

[The Black Hand]

Lost property - i still don't agree with your defence of the packed meeting that decided to go it there way (very SWP or Socialist Party it has to be said) and ignore the conclusion of the first meeting (from what i understand)

There were different technical breaches of the law with regard to the cases. The Fairford one was actually LESS important re the breach of the peace issue than the Jubilee one because orders came from very high to break the law in that case. Probably about equal in terms of acting against peoples' right to protest.

The jubilee case was important cos the police were caught breaking the law and abusing people's right to protest in a very authoritarian manner, and held out to dry for it. As far as I know everything was held as collectively and openly as possible, with progressive politics throughout.

In the Fairford case though...


And i do rate the Jubilee case as more important than the Fairford one, though I appreciate it can be a shock to some liberals to be turned away from demonstrating once in their life. My word, wouldn't it have been instructive if they were striking Yorkshire or Welsh miners having to face that bullshit day in day out in 1984.

 

[Pickman's model]

Ok, well my argument remains that there is no risk with the legal precedent as the police regularly turn people away from demos, as well as detaining them to prevent a breach of the peace. We are merely setting a marker in the ground.

i asked yesterday if you could name an occasion or two when the police turned people away from a demonstration (at fairford, as you may recall, we were prevented from joining the demo, not turned away from it). yr silence indicates that you can't think of a single instance of this occurring, as does yr subsequent contribution:

please don't try and tell me you've never been present when a copper has abused his/her position, threatened arrest for basically nothing etc, stopped you from getting somewhere for no good reason.

can you come up with a couple of examples to substantiate yr allegation about cops turning people away?

and cops turning people away from demonstrations seems to me a different point from not allowing people to reach the demonstration in the first place. you indicate that the fairford ruling won't make any difference to people being turned away from demonstrations - why go through all the kerfuffle then?

2. Not being psychic, I certainly had no idea that a bunch of people who had the same view point had decided not to come to the meeting (or to walk out before the beginning) without passing their views on to someone else to put forward on their behalf. In fact, I would never have known, unless I had read about it on these boards.

so didn't you wonder why 60 of the 120 people on the coaches weren't involved? didn't you have the slightest curiousity about why they weren't associated with the judicial review action?

 

[rednblack]

yr silence indicates that you can't think of a single instance of this occurring, as does yr subsequent contribution:[/i]can you come up with a couple of examples to substantiate yr allegation about cops turning people away?

er no. the silence indicates someone who doesnt have the time to post on here obsessively like us

 

[flimsier]

edited again.

 

[Pickman's model]

thankfully!

 

[flimsier]

for you, yes.

edited to add:

I was going to write about the number of times you ask for a reply, sometimes by setting a time limit, then assume that because someone hasn't met your time limit, (sometimes not explicitly stated) you assume it means whatever you want it to, rather than letting people make their own minds up, or understanding that people are often not interested in what you post.

Quite pathetic really.

I put this post in an edit because I can't be bothered to play your game of getting the last word in. You're too good at it, but it makes for shit posts.

 

[Pickman's model]

if you had anything to add to this discussion, you could have done just now. so i take it you don't.​

 

[The Black Hand]

Got to say well done Pickman - seen off another part time lightweight

 

[Pickman's model]

for you, yes.

edited to add:

I was going to write about the number of times you ask for a reply, sometimes by setting a time limit, then assume that because someone hasn't met your time limit, (sometimes not explicitly stated) you assume it means whatever you want it to, rather than letting people make their own minds up, or understanding that people are often not interested in what you post.

Quite pathetic really.

I put this post in an edit because I can't be bothered to play your game of getting the last word in. You're too good at it, but it makes for shit posts.

i can only recall one time i asked for a reply within a certain time, and that was from gumboot. maybe you could refresh my memory?

 

[rednblack]

i can only recall one time i asked for a reply within a certain time, and that was from gumboot. maybe you could refresh my memory?

er on this thread you havent asked for a time limit simply imposed an arbitrary cut off of 24 hours when the poster wasnt even on line to challenge it. slightly unfair i think.

 

[Pickman's model]

lost property had already given an answer to what i'd asked. it's now a couple of days and no reply. so i suppose i'll have to wait a bit to find out - if they return to that thread.

 

[flimsier]

Yes, you imposed a time limit on me finding you an Islamophobic comment when I rarely posted on here. Then you asked me 24 hours later to apologise for calling you Islamophobic. I saw the posts about three days after that and you'd assumed a whole range of things from my 'silence'.

It followed me putting a definition up here. I don't recall the whole nature of the posts.

IIRC, you demanded something similar from bolshiebhoy about two months later.

 

[Pickman's model]

wouldn't happen now, when you pop up every five minutes! is it still half term, with all teachers posting in the day?