The Fortnum 145, for those not in the know, is not a cheap version of the Fortune 500 but a group of people who were arrested for a sit-in protest at Fortnum & Mason, a posh shop which, the protesters allege, has not paid its fair share of tax charges recently.
By most accounts, this 12 squared plus 1 of socialist die-hards conducted themselves with respect for the owners and even elicited compliments from the police. Indeed, given its politeness and tweeness, it was the Fortnum & Mason of protests in more ways than one.
The Fortnum 145 claim boldly on their webpage that ‘Demonstrating is not a crime’. Well, it is at best hazy as to whether legal peaceful protest extends to disrupting the trade of a private entity.
The rights or wrongs of the protesters’ arguments are neither here nor there, much as it was with Dale Farm and much as it may well prove to be with the Occupy protests at St Paul’s Cathedral and elsewhere. I might have disagreed with sections of the Gaddafi family ordering the killing of their own people to cling onto power but that doesn’t mean I can get away with heading round to Highgate and smashing up their dynastic London home.
That may be a drastic example to prove my point but the 145 were charged with aggravated trespass which is:
if he trespasses on another’s land and carries out any act with the intention of disrupting a lawful activity being carried out on or adjacent to that land.
It sounds like an open and shut case to me I’m afraid and so one has to wonder about the overall wisdom of the venture when FOI requests and pressure on MPs and Ministers may bear more fruitful rewards, legally so into the bargain.
It all reminds me of the old Mark Thomas ruse when he realised he could make some poor PC’s life hell and highlight a silly law (in a silly way) by arranging hundreds of individuals to hold hundreds of separate protests at the same place on the same day. Mark was so pleased with himself, and many of Mark’s devotees think it’s genius, but what point was being made and what was achieved? It all sounds like a silly waste of time to me.
And that’s the problem these days, there’s relatively little to fight for so we inflate our heads with a sense of self-righteousness over the smallest of things and believe we are beyond reproach, whether it’s illegally naming a footballer, making a right pigsty of London’s main tourist attraction or gathering a full 144 of your mates and distracting old ladies from buying new stocks of lovely tea.
It’s not on really. Many readers here may not want to be the full British shilling but I think they’d largely agree that rules are rules and we have a perfectly open and decent democratic process to air, share and blare your views for all to see and vote on.
The Fortnum 145 should have known they were taking a risk when they took their protest onto private property and should realise that there are no shortcuts in a true democracy, whatever an individual believes. If you believe in something then Parliament through the political process is the place to take it. That might sound considerably more dull than camping out on a shop floor, occupying a stock exchange (a patch of gravel round the corner from it at least) or winding up ‘the man’ but it’s the only realistic path to change and it comes with the added bonus of keeping one out of prison. Mostly.
#1 by Aidan on November 21, 2011 - 2:41 pm
I, OTOH, think it’s a shocking abuse of the law to try and silence committed activists. Fortnum & Mason may have been an arguably poor choice of target but I think UKUncut were absolutely engaged in legitimate political protest.
#2 by Jeff on November 21, 2011 - 3:09 pm
AIdan, without wanting to pass either of us off as a legal expert, I don’t understand how you can square that comment with the quote for aggravated trespass that I included in the post.
I would argue that believing one is above the law simply because they believe so passionately what they are protesting about is a fatal weakness in this case, and many cases out there. Indeed, your suggestion that ‘the law’ is wrapped up in some sort of conspiracy is part and parcel of that, and a rather odd assertion to make, if you don’t mind me saying so.
I have no doubt that the judge dispassionately applied the law to the facts. That he/she found the defendants guilty is of little surprise really when one considers the wording of the law.
#3 by Aidan on November 21, 2011 - 4:59 pm
Selectively prosecuting only a few people out of the whole group with a history of protest using a law specifically designed to allow inconvenient protesters to prosecuted is an abuse of the legal system and the rule of law.
Aggravated trespass was part of the Criminal Justice Act 1994, which prompted the following response http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlEs9udOquE I don’t think saying that it was aimed at limiting otherwise legitimate protest is particularly controversial…
#4 by Jeff on November 21, 2011 - 5:45 pm
Aha, well, I have something to say about the selectively prosecuting only some of the individuals Aidan.
The suggestion seems to be that because only some of the 145 were found guilty then they should all have been found innocent. My interpretation was that they all could have been found guilty but only those with a history of wrongdoing, and have had their warning (for want of a better way of putting it), were taken to task.
I daresay you know about the detail of the case better than I do, and I have no intention of being judge, jury or executioner, but the above seems totally reasonable to me, and in keeping with the wider use of the law by judges for other crimes.
It’s simple really; if you don’t to be found guilty of a crime, don’t commit a crime.
#5 by Allan on November 21, 2011 - 7:39 pm
I think if memory serves, either Fortnum & Mason’s parent company were indulging in tax avoidance or they had given money to the Conservative Party. I think that’s why UKUncut targeted them. Conversely Richard at the Tax Research UK blog posted at the time that the UKUncut protesters may have got their sums wrong regarding Fortnum & Mason.
#6 by Chris on November 21, 2011 - 2:57 pm
I think I’m rather with Aidan on that. The F&M protesters were very clear that they weren’t disruptive, and having both spoken to people who were there, and seen footage of the protest, it was clear that business in F&M went on regardless. The fact remains that the protesters were told they could leave, were shepherded out of a side exit, and then kettled, arrested and disseminated to over 25 police stations across London, and had their mobile phones confiscated ‘as evidence’. What possible evidence of ‘aggravated trespass’ can there be on a mobile phone compared to a store with dozens of CCTV cameras?
If the democratic process worked, then people wouldn’t need to protest. But they do.
#7 by Jeff on November 21, 2011 - 3:15 pm
Fair enough. It’s an odd logic though that because people are protesting then democracy isn’t working, particularly when it’s only 145 people out of a country of 60 million.
And if 145 presumably grungy-looking youngsters holding fort in Fortnum & Mason doesn’t put off the famously toffee-nosed clientele of that store, then I don’t know what would.
There may well have been some people buying some produce, but, as I say, I am hardly surprised that the judge found aggravated trespass to be a reasonably fitting conclusion.
#8 by R.G. Bargie on November 21, 2011 - 3:46 pm
“particularly when it’s only 145 people out of a country of 60 million”
As I pointed out in a ludicrously-censored post, SIXTEEN MILLION voters in this country are regularly disenfranchised. That’s a funny definition of democracy working.
#9 by Jeff on November 21, 2011 - 3:53 pm
Sixteen million voters are not disenfranchised, they are able to vote in the council, parliamentary and European elections that regularly come around. If they happen to live in an area with people who hold a different political view then they are not disenfranchised but simply outnumbered. And they have no room for complaints around FPTP as we’ve just had a referendum on it and it was backed, which is depressing but what can you do (except knock on more doors, join a political party etc etc).
PS I chopped off the link to your blog as I think you’ve used up your limit of free linkages back to your blog. I don’t think that’s “ludicrous” but we can agree to disagree.
#10 by R.G. Bargie on November 21, 2011 - 4:05 pm
“Sixteen million voters are not disenfranchised”
Their votes, for no good reason, count for nothing. How is that not “disenfranchised”? MPs don’t make the laws for their individual constituencies, so why are votes for a particular party worth something in constituency A and a waste of time in constituency B next door?
“And they have no room for complaints around FPTP as we’ve just had a referendum on it and it was backed”
As numerous people have already pointed out, that’s a nonsensical argument when it was only “backed” against another system that in practice was also FPTP. If FPTP wins a referendum against a proportional-representation system, fair enough. But AV is FPTP with a hat on, and nobody’s buying the disguise.
“I think you’ve used up your limit of free linkages back to your blog”
I think that’s been maybe two or three in God knows how many scores of posts, so it’s hardly spamming, but so what anyway? How does it hurt you in the slightest if a couple of dozen people (the typical fruits of a link) visit an ad-free, non-profit blog to read stuff in more detail than can be sensibly pasted into a comment thread? You link to almost 100 other blogs, why is a link to a specific relevant article somehow intolerable? Jeesh.
#11 by Jeff on November 21, 2011 - 4:55 pm
“Their votes, for no good reason, count for nothing. How is that not “disenfranchisedâ€?”
To be disenfranchised is to be deprived of the right to vote. Any voter, by definition, is not disenfranchised.
As for FPTP vs AV, there is a sizeable difference between the two but even if you do prefer STV or PR or whatever, there is no party shouting for it so get involved, join a campaign group or something but to argue that there are no democratic means by which to change any structure of British society is palpable, dribbling nonsense and, I’m sorry, we’ve had a few rounds but I’m just not going to rise to it from here on in.
#12 by R.G. Bargie on November 21, 2011 - 5:15 pm
The definition of “disenfranchise” is in fact rather broader than that. According to Mirriam-Webster it can also mean “Deprived of power; marginalized”, which is certainly an apt description of a Labour voter in a safe Tory seat.
“even if you do prefer STV or PR or whatever, there is no party shouting for it”
My point entirely. The only way to change the system is to vote for a party committed to it, except there isn’t one, and the current system means that any new party would have no chance of being elected to power. Catch 22.
(Look at the Lib Dems – they’ve been going in one form or another for a hundred years and still can’t win genuine power, because under FPTP they need about five times as many votes as the other two to get the same number of seats. Democracy working brilliantly, there.)
#13 by R.G. Bargie on November 21, 2011 - 2:58 pm
“we have a perfectly open and decent democratic process to air”
Quack quack oops. We have a farce of a sham of democracy, thanks to an FPTP system that shuts out all but three parties. That’s bad enough in itself, but when those three parties are offering policies barely distinguishable from each other it’s a serious democratic deficit. When peaceful protest is rendered all but impossible – which is what both Thomas and the F&M protesters have highlighted – that problem gets more serious still. I’m amazed you’re this complacent about the state of Britain’s “democracy”.
#14 by Jeff on November 21, 2011 - 3:15 pm
We just had a referendum on FPTP and it was overwhelmingly backed.
How is that not a democratic state of affairs?
#15 by R.G. Bargie on November 21, 2011 - 3:17 pm
Because in every conceivable meaningful sense, the AV referendum offered a “choice” between two things that were identical?
#16 by James on November 21, 2011 - 3:34 pm
If we’d been offered FPTP or a kick in the nuts would that have counted as “overwhelmingly backed” too?
#17 by Jeff on November 21, 2011 - 3:47 pm
I don’t know why you’re choosing to focus on the phrase “overwhelmingly backed”, my point was that democracy was in action in a healthy way. Do you dispute that?
#18 by R.G. Bargie on November 21, 2011 - 4:07 pm
I don’t know about James, but I certainly do. Offering people a meaningless choice between two all-but-identical options isn’t democracy, it’s a cynical mockery of it.
#19 by Shave on November 21, 2011 - 3:41 pm
Do you want the United Kingdom to adopt the ‘punch in the face’ system instead of the current ‘kick in the nuts’ system for electing Members of Parliament to the House of Commons?
The overwhelming financial backing of the ‘kick in the nuts’ side (and that the ‘punch in the face’ side can’t punch) had more to do with the outcome than the demonstrated will of the people imo.
Or what James said.
#20 by Chris on November 21, 2011 - 3:19 pm
‘Overwhelmingly’ backed on a turnout of 42%?
#21 by Jeff on November 21, 2011 - 3:46 pm
Decisions are made by those who decide to get involved. That result was 68% to 32%.
Are you suggesting that there is a latent majority support for change to the voting system out there and/or that the AV referendum was held in an undemocratic way? I’m just trying to zoom in one what your point is exactly, mindful that I want to stay on topic with Fortnum 145.
#22 by Greig Aitken on November 21, 2011 - 3:37 pm
The headline to this blog must have been irresistible, but hasn’t Simon Heffer been all over this before?
http://www.leftfutures.org/2011/03/support-uk-uncut-and-those-arrested-at-fortnum-mason-non-violent-and-sensible-innocent-and-victimised/
#23 by Jeff on November 21, 2011 - 3:41 pm
Hadn’t read it, thanks for the link.
#24 by James on November 21, 2011 - 3:37 pm
.. there’s relatively little to fight for
I could hardly disagree more. We’re facing the most grievous environmental crisis since an asteroid ended the Cretaceous Period. We’re facing the second post-war wave of radical class war (in its usual form – rich hammering poor), with economically incompetent austerity for the poor and tax evasion for the rich. We’re living in a notional democracy where corporations and rich donors own the parties we get to choose governments from, north and south of the border. Etc.
#25 by Indy on November 21, 2011 - 3:56 pm
Lol if your latter comments are aimed at the SNP I wonder how you think we could be “owned” by a dead poet and an ex-BBC cameraman and his wife – national heroes both, (said status for the Weirs due to their saving of the Waverley I hasten to add, not their donation to the SNP.)
#26 by James on November 21, 2011 - 4:02 pm
I assume you’ve had your fingers in your ears every time Brian Soutar’s name has come up in dispatches.
#27 by Indy on November 21, 2011 - 4:08 pm
He ain’t the SNP’s biggest donor – not by a long shot. And for all the accusations regularly hurled that the SNP accepted money from a”homophobe” it did not stop us from voting to repeal section 2a, it did not stop us from supporting the expansion of hate crimes to include LGBT people and it isn’t stopping us from taking forward equal marriage proposals so I think you are on pretty shaky ground there.
#28 by James on November 21, 2011 - 4:42 pm
He was in 2007, though, the same year bus reregulation disappeared from your manifesto for the first time.
#29 by Indy on November 21, 2011 - 4:51 pm
Once again the SNP’s 2007 pre-manifesto consultation was completely open and transparent. The internal policy papers that went to National Assembly are, I believe, available in the National Library of Scotland. The external consultation document was sent to many thousands of consultees, including every community council in Scotland, and is again available I am sure from the National Library.
I have made this point on a number of times on this website so you must be aware that claiming that the SNP dropped a commitment to bus regulation from its 2007 manifesto is simply untrue. It was not part of the consultation. It was never considered for inclusion in the 2007 manifesto.
If you wish to attack the SNP’s policy on bus regulation feel free but please stop this tiresome accusation that a policy was removed from our manifesto at the behest of a donor when it is a matter of public record that this is not the case.
Pingback: The Fortnum and Mason debacle « Heads Down, Thumbs Up
#30 by Indy on November 21, 2011 - 3:50 pm
It seems absolutely bizarre to me that chanting, speaking on a loudhailer and playing volleyball were described by the judge as acts of intimidation – in fact as “the primary acts of intimidation”.
Clearly that is nonsense and the police specifically said that the protestors were well behaved.
Also they weren’t charged with disrupting business were they?
Don’t get me wrong, if I was popping into Fortnum and Mason for a cup of tea and a cream scone I would probably find it rather tedious to be met by a bunch of middle class, volleyball playing anarachists but I wouldn’t want them to be arrested because generally speaking I think people should only be arrested when they are doing something that could be considered harmful. Which these people weren’t.
Even if the police decided to move them on there are ways of doing that which don’t need to end up in court. Asking them to leave and then arresting them when they do just seems OTT and unnecessary.
#31 by Jeff on November 21, 2011 - 3:56 pm
No, I agree Indy that “intimidating” does seem to be an odd choice of word. However, the key word in the law is “disrupting”.
I like volleyball as much as the next person but I don’t want to be in the middle of a game when I’m out doing my shopping. I’d find it, well, disruptive and I’d no doubt end up going elsewhere, costing that store some trade.
#32 by Indy on November 21, 2011 - 4:03 pm
Yes but they weren’t charged with disrupting trade. They were charged with “the intimidation of people on private property” and the examples given were playing volleyball, speaking through a loudhailer and chanting.
That’s a piece of nonsense really isn’t it when the police said that the protestors were well behaved. If they were well behaved why were they arrested and why were they charged? The police could have moved them on without making any arrests and that is what I would expect them to do if the protestors conducted themselves in a peaceful way.
#33 by Jeff on November 21, 2011 - 3:57 pm
And yes, they were effectively charged with ‘disrupting business’ as that is intricately linked with the crime of “aggravated trespass”.
It’s a far cry from GBH or murder, but the law’s the law.
#34 by R.G. Bargie on November 21, 2011 - 4:12 pm
EXHIBIT 1: “the law’s the law.”
EXHIBIT 2: “Those pointing out that media activities Hugh Grant talks of are not illegal are missing the point. They SHOULD be illegal.” – a certain J. Breslin, tweeting earlier this afternoon.
Hmm.
Peaceful protest IS democracy – real live democracy in action. Indeed, when political democracy has failed, as ours unquestionably has, it’s the only legitimate option. Criminalising it, and criminalising it by deception at that, is a disgrace. If we’re not going to kick up a fuss when that happens, we may as well all just report to Cyber Leader for “upgrading”.
#35 by Jeff on November 21, 2011 - 4:49 pm
I don’t see any problem with those two statements.
Aggravated trespass is, quite reasonably, a law in this country. I don’t think many people have a problem with that.
The press hacking into mobile phones of dead schoolgirls and dead soldiers to get stories for the newspapers should be illegal. I don’t think anyone has a problem with that.
And over and above that, and the point of my ‘the law is the law’, is that a citizen can, and should, operate within the confines of a country’s law at all times unless he/she is content with being found guilty of a crime and/or going to jail.
Are you suggesting that we as citizens should be picking and choosing which laws apply to us? I’m sorry, I just don’t get what point you are trying to make amidst this mad flurry of errant arrows you are sending my way.
#36 by R.G. Bargie on November 21, 2011 - 5:24 pm
“Are you suggesting that we as citizens should be picking and choosing which laws apply to us?”
No, I’m suggesting that you’re complaining about something (the actions of the News Of The World etc) which is legal but which you don’t like. Nothing wrong with that. But at the same time you’re complaining about OTHER people complaining about something which is legal, ie the arrest and prosecution of the FM145, which they don’t like.
Either it’s okay to raise objections to stuff which is legal but (in your view) wrong, or it isn’t.
#37 by Indy on November 21, 2011 - 4:22 pm
I think we are talking at cross purposes here. I don’t dispute that the police had a right to break up the protest.
What I am concerned about is that it all ended up in court when it didn’t have to.
The Guardian has video footage of a senior officer telling the protestors that if they left, that would be the end of it basically. Then when they left they were all arrested! This is the point Chris is making as well I think.
That’s just not necessary. The police are there to enforce the law, yes, but they shouldn’t be arresting people if those people do what the police tell them to do.
We shouldn’t speculate but to me it looks as though the officers on the ground had the situation well in hand, they told the protestors the fun was over, time to go home and then a decision was taken somewhere else to arrest the whole lot of them. Apart from anything else that’s a waste of police time if they were leaving anyway.
#38 by Jeff on November 21, 2011 - 4:46 pm
For me, the police conduct is totally separate to the judgement made by the judge.
Once the action was taken by the Fortnum 145 and the crime (if it was a crime) was committed, then it was always going to be for the judge to decide whether there would be leniency or a sentence handed down. In terms of physically getting the people out of the shop, that’s police tactics and it does sound like they’ve been a bit sneaky with what they’ve said to the protesters but, let’s look at this objectively, the police have saved time by prematurely ending what they perceived to be law-breaking conduct by giving out a bit of misdirection. I know I have no problem with that, but then I don’t have a deep-seated mistrust of the police, as many others tend to do.
I don’t think the police should be criticised for arresting people who, quite clearly in light of the recent judgement (not to mention the black and white wording of the law itself), were breaking the law.
#39 by Indy on November 21, 2011 - 5:01 pm
Sorry Jeff it is just not the case that it was always going to end up in court. It didn’t have to and you know what? In Scotland it wouldn’t have.
That’s worth thinking about – I’m not making a Scotland-is-better-than-England point here. I’m just saying that it’s better for the police to go in with an attitude of dealing with a problem rather than looking to make arrests. There was a report out last week about the riots which made that very point – that the lack of rioting in Scotland could be ascribed to the style of policing.
And I am sure most English people would actually agree with the proposition that the police should concentrate on trying to stop real criminals and only arrest demonstrators if they turn violent. If demonstrations turn violent then fine, throw the book at them. Otherwise decisions to arrest and charge people are political more than anything else. How much did it cost to process the arrests of those 145 people? How much did it cost to take them to court? What was the point of it when they had already agreed to leave the store?
#40 by R.G. Bargie on November 21, 2011 - 5:19 pm
“How much did it cost to process the arrests of those 145 people? How much did it cost to take them to court? What was the point of it when they had already agreed to leave the store?”
Mm. How can something be “trespass” at all, when the premises are open to the public (NB I am aware this isn’t the same as being public property) and the “trespassers” have agreed to leave when asked? How is “trespass” defined there? You don’t normally have to apply for special permission to walk into F&M, do you?
#41 by Jeff on November 21, 2011 - 5:42 pm
Funnily enough, I was going to look up the Scots equivalent of aggravated trespass but an unavoidable obstacle got in the way (I couldn’t be bothered).
I wish I had now as I had assumed it would just be the same so, yes, that is an interesting cross-border consideration. A separate post in its own right I suppose (and by someone more legally minded than I).
#42 by Chris on November 21, 2011 - 4:32 pm
That’s a TERRIBLE response! The law’s the law? Segregation was the law. So was slavery, and not having women vote. So was (and is in some places) the legality of abortion.
#43 by Jeff on November 21, 2011 - 4:41 pm
“the law’s the law”. My point being, if you embark on a course of action that runs contrary to any law, you can hardly complain if some days later a judge finds you guilty of that crime. That ties back into my point about people having an over-inflated sense of justice about their own personal viewpoint.
And aggravated trespass is hardly slavery, come on, but if you do want to change it then go for it, just make sure your protest is legal…
#44 by Iain Menzies on November 21, 2011 - 6:37 pm
“so was slavery”
well….not quite actually
#45 by Chris on November 21, 2011 - 4:51 pm
I appreciate that it’s a whole different world from slavery, but some laws are wrong in fact, and some are wrong in application.
That’s largely the problem. Through things like this that protest is becoming increasingly criminalised. People have the right to protest on the clearly defined piece of land pre-agreed with the police and that doesn’t really get in the way, and is largely ignored by the media unless there’s violence. That’s not really protest; protest is meant to be disruptive, either geographically, politically,or narratively.
#46 by Bob Irving on November 21, 2011 - 5:07 pm
Errm, first you say “die-hards conducted themselves with respect for the owners and even elicited compliments from the police”, then you claim that it was an “open and shut case” of “aggravated trespass”. Your perception seems to change between paragraphs.
The point that Mark Thomas made was the oppressiveness of the bureaucracy surrounding demonstrating within a ridiculously large area surrounding Parliament. The full extent of this stupidity emerged when someone was arrested for reading out the names of British soldiers killed in Iraq (?).
The objective of UKUncut in making these protests, as far as I can see, is not to bring about political change by bringing commerce to its knees as in a general strike or violent revolution, but by embarrassing both the tax avoiders and the government into action – within the law. As such, they seem to be succeeding.
Presumably you’re happy with the status quo where these large companies avoid paying tax and HMRC seem happy to let them off. Why are you blogging at “BetterNation”? Would our nation not be better if it was more equitable?
#47 by Jeff on November 21, 2011 - 5:40 pm
Not at all Bob. One could walk into a private shop, gleefully toss around a volleyball for a few hours, tell a few jokes and then leave. It would be a very pleasant protest but, as I understand it at least, it would still be aggravated trespass and you’d still be leaving yourself open to arrest and a guilty charge. So my perception doesn’t just change aside from the aesthetic to the legal, which is as I intended it.
As for not paying tax to HMRC, of course I want companies to pay their full share of tax but, without knowing the facts, I’m not going to assume companies are guilty without knowing the full correspondence between F&M et al and the tax bodies. I’m obviously not going to do that and so I shall continue to believe that there is a large slice out of the UK who believe passionately that they are correct, simply because they think so.
#48 by Allan on November 21, 2011 - 7:50 pm
The Treasury select comittee would be a good place to start Jeff. Dave Hartnett (the head of HMRC) and his lawyers have been twisting in the wind like… er… things twisting in the wind over his deals with Vodaphone & Goldman Sachs.
#49 by Douglas McLellan on November 22, 2011 - 3:20 am
So if a company follows all accounting rules and pays the taxes that HMRC believes it should pay why should it be the target of protest for following the law?
Certainly I would support an occupation of HMRC as I believe we need a far more open and transparent tax system with no tax “deals” agreed by civil servants.
This moral high ground claimed by the protestors and their supporters (always more supporters than actual protestors, why is that? – gone are the days of Greenham Common where 50,000 women turned up to an occupation protest) is a strange one when all a company is doing is obeying the rules set out by parliament and paying the tax requested of it by parliaments tax collectors.
#50 by douglas clark on November 21, 2011 - 5:10 pm
Jeff,
I tend to get my news of the Fortnum and Mason debacle from Liberal Conspiracy. They published this in July:
It seems to me that 109 cases have been dropped and 30 went on to trial. I wonder what happened to the other six?
#51 by Craig Gallagher on November 21, 2011 - 5:33 pm
Protesting legally is, by definition, an oxymoron. What is the point of doing things by the rules of those you are protesting against? The only way to get they attention of the corporations and, by extension, the government is to defy the comfortable and cloying rules they impose to protect themselves from popular displeasure. Obviously, a degree of common sense needs to be applied here – you can’t expect much sympathy for smashing up a high street store, for example – but the threshold is definitely fluid. To criticise the protesters for being stupid enough to break the law completely misses the point, Jeff. There is such a thing as rights, natural rights, human rights, which historically have always superseded the law of the land. Arbitrary authority can’t simply be respected for its own self. Legality is not enough: there also needs to be justice.
#52 by Douglas McLellan on November 21, 2011 - 5:34 pm
I am concerned. This is the second post in a row I am completely in agreement with Jeff on. If you protest in this way it is inevitable that there will be consequences.
From my own point of view it is clear that the targets of UKUncut, i.e. the evil corporations that give money to charity or pay money into my pension fund, is all wrong. Occupy and demonstrate at HMRC & the Treasury. Protest and demand an open and transparent tax system. Demand that although the top 1% pay 24% of income tax that they should pay more.
Democracy is 100% functional in this country. If people want change they will vote for it.
#53 by Indy on November 21, 2011 - 6:51 pm
” If you protest in this way it is inevitable that there will be consequences.”
That is simply not true. There have been thousands of demonstrations and protests over the years which have not resulted in anyone being arrested or jailed.
As a rule of thumb, non-violent protests in which the protesters agree to disperse when the police tell them to have generally ended up with no-one being arrested. That was the case even back in the Thatcher days.
If that situation is changing and the authorities down south have decided that they are going to start carrying out mass arrests of peaceful protestors who have not damaged any property, have not threatened anybody, who have not engaged in violence or threatened to engage in violence and who leave peacefully when they are instructed to by the boys and girls in blue then that is a change from the way in which demonstrations of this sort have been policed for decades.
Which is what people down south are concerned about and I completely understand why they are concerned. As the letter writers to the Guardian put it “The judge ruled that the simple act of “demonstrating” is potentially intimidating, and therefore a crime. That ordinary people can be branded criminals for taking part in such a protest is a worrying sign”.
I totally agree with that. People have been able to take part in non-violent demonstrations for decades without running the risk of being criminalised, what is the imperative for changing that state of affairs now? What is the reasoning behind it?
#54 by Douglas McLellan on November 22, 2011 - 3:12 am
But it is true. There are differing types of protest. Actual occupation of private property, peaceful or not, has never been treated the same as marches, protests in public spaces or occupations of public buildings/land. I don’t believe that this is something that has changed remarkably. It is the target of protest and occupation that have changed to more private enterprises as opposed to state land & activities. And what is interesting is that whereas previously protest was about a righting a specific wrong (unfair job losses) or worldwide moral position (anti-nuclear), this particular protest was against a company operating in an open and legal manner.
Of course protest is intimidating to some. I never fail to be amazed that every protester and those who support this type of activity believes that every person in the place they are occupying/demonstrating is a mentally and socially robust as them. I have seen a person receiving daily support from CPNs get very distressed when trying to learn how to be normal and shop in a Topshop which was targeted for protest.
#55 by Indy on November 22, 2011 - 10:34 am
I don’t accept that at all. In fact I have gone out and looked this all up.
The Aggravated Trespass Act which was used in this case was passed in 1994 – it created a new offence which as I recall from the time was to deal mainly with animal rights activists, hunt saboteurs etc and I think it was also used pretty controversially to break up raves.
In 2003 there was an amendment passed to say that aggravated trespass can occur inside as well as outside buildings.
So the law used in this case only came into existence in 2003 and it was brought into existence at the behest of pharmaceutical companies etc to deal with the issue of animal rights protestors who did rather more to obstruct the business of the labs they entered than play volleyball and chant pay your taxes!!
Prior to the amendment in 2003 the police down south only had the power to remove protestors from the building or to arrest them for breach of the peace – which is what I think is still the current position in Scotland and long may it remain so.
#56 by Douglas McLellan on November 22, 2011 - 3:52 pm
The Aggravated Trespass Act 1994? Cant find it.
When the first trespass laws were being developed in the 16th & 17th centuries through to The Game Act 1831 to the 1977 Crime Act there has always been a criminal element to legal proceedings. And thats just England.
Certain types of trespass have been criminal since the Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865 was passed. Section 3 of the Act makes it an offence for any person to lodge in any premises, or occupy or encamp on any land, being private property, without the consent of the owner or legal occupier. While the the use of the words lodge, occupy and encamp could be taken to imply a degree of permanency on the part of the trespasser, their scope could possibly be taken to mean to apply to loitering by a determined lawyer if one did anything other than access, or cross over such property for example.
#57 by Indy on November 21, 2011 - 6:01 pm
Maybe it would be useful here to compare and contrast with what happens at Faslane. It’s been a while since I have been at any blockades there but I went in the past, though I was never arrested because I chose not to be.
Maybe that might sound a bit weird but it is a choice. The police would say OK we are going to ask you to move back now. If you do not move back you will be arrested. So the people who didn’t want to be arrested moved back and the people who did want to be arrested stayed where they were and were duly arrested.
But up until the point when the police said we’re going to ask you to move back we were all doing the same thing. But they gave everyone a chance to move back and basically comply with what they were being asked to do and if you did that it was fine.
That’s how demonstrations should be handled without unnecessary arrests cos you know if they were going to arrest everybody who turned up at Faslane it would be a massive burden on the public purse and what would be the point?
#58 by Jeff on November 21, 2011 - 6:14 pm
Sounds like a very civilised way to go about business to me Indy.
I would say that Faslane and F&M are significant different kettles of fish. The protest at F&M (arguably) disrupted trade which has a direct impact on the company’s profit which in turn has a direct impact on whether the company can be a going concern.
As for Faslane, the protest is more about the nature of the business that is conducted there and the protest does not have any impact on any ‘trade’ as such, and does not therefore have as important an impact on those being protested against. It’s also clear why Faslane is a viable protest, who the hell knows how much tax F&M should or shouldn’t pay given the myriad of Corporation Tax rules that exist out there.
I don’t think we’re gaining much as a society by having any of the F&M 145 in jail I hasten to add, Faslane protesters for that matter too.
#59 by Barbarian on November 21, 2011 - 7:16 pm
While I think protests are fine, disrupting a business is not. How would people like it if 145 individuals decided to turn up in their front garden or house, albeit peacefully, in protest at something or other?
I’m not suggesting we arrest 145 people, but whoever organises such events should be held to account. F&M may decided to sue those convicted for loss of trade via the civil courts, an approach many organisations now do.
I have to question this comment by Indy:
“If you wish to attack the SNP’s policy on bus regulation feel free but please stop this tiresome accusation that a policy was removed from our manifesto at the behest of a donor when it is a matter of public record that this is not the case.”
I don’t accept Soutar had no influence. Regulation would not be to the benefit of Stagecoach. Such matters are conducted in private with no written record. The SNP is no different to any other political party when it comes to funding.
#60 by James on November 21, 2011 - 7:25 pm
And “we didn’t consult on it” isn’t exactly proof that it wasn’t either dropped pre-consultation at his request, or pre-emptively dropped because early discussions had suggested it’d be problematic. Sorry, this one walks like a duck and quacks like a duck,
#61 by Indy on November 21, 2011 - 7:39 pm
Of course it was dropped because it was problematic. Duh.
And you know what James if you go through the SNP’s manifesto from 2003 and the manifesto from 2007 you will find a whole host of things that were dropped.
Because there is a big difference between writing a wishlist manifesto when you can be fairly sure you ain’t going to be elected and writing a manifesto for an election you are planning to win.
Frankly we still managed to include a number of unrealistic commitments in the 2007 manifesto, as people may recall! It’s a good job we didn’t add re-regulating buses into the bargain because despite what Labour claim the truth is there would be a pretty hefty bill attached to that one.
#62 by Allan on November 21, 2011 - 7:54 pm
Wasn’t the policy (to introduce regulation to bus services) announced at the 2006 Autumn conference?
#63 by Indy on November 21, 2011 - 8:40 pm
Nope. The YSI put in a resolution that called for the SNP to re-regulate buses to simplify ticketing, halt the system of several companies competing for passengers on the same route and increase overall passenger numbers.
Classic wishlist policy – certainly not “announced” by anyone.
The YSI, along with everyone else who sees bus regulation as a magic bullet,has had 6 years to put a case together. Yet, as I said the only concrete proposal for bus regulation came from Charlie Gordon in a private member’s bill and if you can make any sense of it, it’s more than most people could.
I would be quite happy to support any policy which improved bus services – I don’t drive, I take the bus pretty much every day o my life, and I will take bus regulation seriously as a policy when someone sets out, stage by stage, what legislative changes are required, what new powers require to be created, how they will be implented, who will implement them, how they will increase either the number of services or the number of passengers, how it will also meet unmet need and finally how much the whole thing would cost and where the money is coming from.
Since no-one has done that I rather suspect that it can’t be done and that the chief virtue of talking about bus regulation is to have a go at the SNP Government.
#64 by Indy on November 21, 2011 - 7:34 pm
Sorry that is nonsense. As I said to James the SNP’s pre-manifesto consultation is a matter of public record.
You can either contact SNP Headquarters or go into the National Library and read copies of both the internal policy discussion papers and the external consultation booklet (called “What could the future bring?) that was sent out to a whole range of individuals and organisations including, as I said, every community council in Scotland in the run-up to the 2007 election. I well remember discussing it at my own community council where, after the most interesting debate we have ever had, they decided not to send in a response because community councils are supposed to be non-political!
The consultation was carried out in the latter half of 2006. It did not contain any mention of the bus regulation – that was not an option for inclusion in the SNP manifesto.
Brian Souter made his donation to the SNP in March 2007, at least six months AFTER the SNP’s pre-manifesto consultation was started.
Therefore it is simply untrue to say that the SNP removed a commitment to bus regulation as a result of the donation – unless you are going to try and argue against the basic laws of physics as they apply to space and time.
#65 by James on November 21, 2011 - 7:46 pm
If you’re claiming the SNP will open up private meetings predating this late 2006 consultation and show that no senior figures had meetings with Brian Souter, or provide minutes of any such meetings which show credibly it wasn’t discussed, and are prepared to go on oath and say that the policy wasn’t preemptively dropped in the hope of a donation, fine.
#66 by Indy on November 21, 2011 - 8:03 pm
It was dropped like many other policies were dropped because it’s pretty much undo-able.
It’s one of these things that people talk about but have no idea what they are actually proposing.
I have had numerous discussions with people at Labour Hame about what exactly they want us to do and answer came there none.
The only clues came with Charlie Gordon’s bill and even that didn’t make sense.
I mean let’s look at Labour’s manifesto “commitment”.
“Scottish Labour will make certain our communities are served by better bus services through strengthening regulation.”
What does that mean exactly?
Now let’s look at yours – written by a party which had no real prospect of getting into power and could therefore pretty much say whatever it wanted.
“We’ll consult on proposals for greater regulation of bus
services, including a wider role for the Traffic Commissioner.”
Wow. That’s really definite as well.
You know if any of you had a really hard and fast properly costed policy on re-regulating the buses I think you would have put it out there,
But you haven’t.
So who bought you off then?
#67 by Craig Gallagher on November 22, 2011 - 1:02 am
And let that be the end of it. This bus re-regulation thing must be the most tiresome rehashed argument I’ve seen in a long time. To think people are still hammering the Nationalists about a policy commitment from TWO Parliaments ago is madness.
#68 by James on November 22, 2011 - 10:12 am
Nah, it’s not the end of it. How absurd even to suggest so.
Charlie Gordon, whatever you may think of him, brought forward proposals to regulate the buses which we supported and which the SNP opposed. Greens would regulate the buses again. The SNP won’t.
The next bit you missed out from our manifesto – classic trick – says:
“Public transport is a public service, and the market alone will never protect many of the routes people depend upon.”
Whereas market alone is SNP policy, or at least became so between 2003 and 2007, or at least became what appeared in the manifesto irrespective of policy.
#69 by Indy on November 22, 2011 - 12:50 pm
It is absolute nonsense to say that the SNP policy is simply to let the market decide on bus services. If that is the case what is the 740 million that the SG put in to the bus industry spent on I wonder?
Also Charlie Gordon’s bill was as clear as mud. I have read it front to back and back to front and it is a hybrid of various wishlists with no actual clarity as to what is being proposed as regards regulation.
After a long discussion at Labour Hame I eventually got it clarified that existing legislation allows for the introduction of a Quality Contract (QC) – a franchise type arrangement under which authorities are able to determine what local services should be provided and specify routes, the standard and quality of services and fares. Local transport authorities can introduce a QC for a particular area if they can demonstrate that such a contract is necessary in order to implement their local transport policies.
So the legal power to do what Charlie Gordon was proposing is already there. According to him the problem is that it would be too expensive for local authorities to do. It needs to be financed by the SG.
So how much money are we talking about? You were going to consult on it, you must have some idea. Put a figure on it.
#70 by Chris on November 21, 2011 - 7:27 pm
I believe they were anarchists. “All proper tea is theft”
#71 by Hamish on November 21, 2011 - 8:37 pm
It took me until “we have a perfectly open and decent democratic process” to realise this was a parody!
#72 by G. P. Walrus on November 22, 2011 - 7:40 am
How is it that the press can camp out on and around the properties of traumatized people like the Dowlers, ring their doorbells incessantly and hound them up the street and no-one gets arrested for aggravated trespass in our perfectly functioning democracy? One rule for the press, another for everyone else? Or does volleyball have to take place to constitute a crime?