There seems to be a bit of a news blackout on this today. By my reckoning all the arrestees should have either been charged or released by now, unless exensions to custody time limits have been granted, yet not heard anything today.

And frankly, any magistrate who grants an extension of custody for an offence of ‘conspiracy to commit aggravated trespass’ hasn’t got the interests of justice at the forefront of his mind and that’s putting it mildly.

AT was designed to outlaw a particular form of protest, hunt sabotage. Its a reminder that nulab aren’t the only authoritarian madmen out there.

https://liberalconspiracy.org/2009/01/19/the-end-of-america-the-end-of-western-democracy/

I just have to re-link to this older article, seems as though point 5 and 6 are taking a step in the wrong direction.

This is overzealous policing and is unacceptable. But will any left-wingers on this site condemn ‘direct action’ – the destruction of private property and other criminal acts – as unacceptable?

good to see the state and the police protecting the interests of capital regardless of the impending calamity of Global Climate Catastrophe.

“We may face a scorched and lifeless earth/But they’re accounable to their shareholders first”

Cicero – I don’t like direct action, and won’t condone it, but then I also think that governments that don’t listen to significant opinions, even if they are in the minority, can’t cry foul when protesters take the only route left that’s likely to make an impact.

“And frankly, any magistrate who grants an extension of custody for an offence of ‘conspiracy to commit aggravated trespass’ hasn’t got the interests of justice at the forefront of his mind and that’s putting it mildly.”

You might think differently when its your mother on the operating table and the lights go out because some trustafarian has chosen political escapism rather than do some hard graft.

You might think differently when its your mother on the operating table and the lights go out because some trustafarian has chosen political escapism rather than do some hard graft.

Ahh… the rightwing sound of defence of liberty and freedom to protest.

#3 – I certainly won’t condemn direct action carte blance. Regardless, punitively describing direct action as “the destruction of private property and other criminal acts” is a little strange. Do you condemn an action simply because it’s against the law, regardless of the content of the action? Would you condemn someone for photographing a police officer because it’s direct action and now against the law? Do you condemn occupations if a court rules against them, but approve of them if a court rules in favour?

Back on the issue itself –

I’m a little confused about the offence here – is “conspiracy to commit” any existing offence a criminal offence in itself? I don’t really understand how you can have conspiracy to commit aggravated trespass, but if you can, can the police also arrest everyone at a BNP rally for conspiracy to commit incitement to racial hatred?

Trustafarians! I knew it was them! Even when it was the bears, I knew it was them.

Sunny Ahh… the rightwing sound of defence of liberty and freedom to protest.

http://lpuk.blogspot.com/2009/04/arresting-freedom.html

Lets try to work together where we agree. It’s the y axis that’s important.

From the LPUK blog: “I am somewhat sceptical about the whole climate change industry and believe that green campaigners are, on the whole, well meaning but misguided fools.”

Wtf? I’m sorry, but that is a bit pathetic. Climate change industry? Is that the one down the road next to the pesky Race relations industry, in a country where there aren’t many black police officers purely because the police “only hire the best people for the job”?

Well, they could always form a Party and campaign at elections for their beliefs. Look, there’s even one already in place; the Green Party. Despite the trendiness of their causes and widespread support from luvvies and bearded academics they still get less votes than the hated supposed fascists. That’s why the crusties choose direct action; there is NO popular mandate for their views.

I wonder what your reaction would be to the BNP attempting direct action at the Home Office or the 3,000 fake colleges or our immigration centres? You are only interested in freedom to protest, when you sympathise with the message. Hypocrites.

“I wonder what your reaction would be to the BNP attempting direct action at the Home Office or the 3,000 fake colleges or our immigration centres? You are only interested in freedom to protest, when you sympathise with the message.”

#12

I think you’ve missed the point.

I approve of direct action when I sympathise with the message and I think the action is justifiable. I disapprove when I don’t. If the BNP attempted direct action, of course I wouldn’t support them. In fact, I’d approve of anyone who took direct action against them.

However, in all these circumstances I’d accept the legal legitimacy of proportionate police action (even if in some circumstances I found myself on the other side). I’m not an anarchist. No-one should take part in direct action without being aware of the risks and without being willing to suffer the proper consequences of their actions (btw, proper consequences do not include being hit over the head with a baton).

Can you explain how that’s hypocritical?

I approve of direct action when I sympathise with the message and I think the action is justifiable. I disapprove when I don’t. Can you explain how that’s hypocritical?

Can’t you see that your words practically define hypocrisy.

Isn’t it obvious? If you believe in an inconsistent approach by the authorities to prevent disruption to the public and possible criminal activity, based on causes that you like, then, yes, that makes you a hypocrite. Plus, quite fascist like in your approach to governance.

gah, haven’t time now. Substantial response later, but you’re wrong!

both of you!

Right wing business will never understand direct action because they have another way of getting what they want, bribery of politicians. No need to march when you just pick up the phone and offer to pour millions into the coffers of some low life politician.

“Well, they could always form a Party and campaign at elections for their beliefs. Look, there’s even one already in place; the Green Party. Despite the trendiness of their causes and widespread support from luvvies and bearded academics they still get less votes than the hated supposed fascists.”

Errr, no they don’t, even with the most of the media giving them nothing other than positive coverage and turning a blind eye to the fact they happen to be a rather large criminal conspiracy made up of paedophiles, violent offenders and terrorists the bnp have still only got half the council seats the Green’s have.

At the last general election the greens (the English green party, there is no UK green party) had 257000 votes , 20% more than the fash.

ok, on direct action:

#15 I DON’T believe in an inconsistent approach by the authorities depending on whether I agree with them or not. The point is a believe a consistent approach by the authorities is appropriate. HOWEVER, that doesn’t prevent me from saying that I believe some direct actions are moral (and I therefore approve of them), and some immoral (which I therefore disapprove of) depending on their motive and effect, as long as I’m willing to say that those I consider moral should have the same approach taken to them by the authorities.

It gets more complicated than that, but if you don’t understand that there’s no point writing more. Can you see the logic there or not?

Cicero @3

No, because the government’s definition of ‘direct action’ includes sit-ins and picket lines. That’s why they attacked Climate Camp: that’s what the ‘conspiracy to trespass’ thing is about. Political vandalism is a more complex issue.

Also: no, because the government will not condemn direct action by their own, highly trained, well-equipped, vandals. This is a ‘you must put down your pea-shooter, but we can keep our nuke’ scenario.

Chavscum and Pagar @various:

Not speaking for TimF, nor for any left-wingers (since I’m not one) but:

The reason you see hypocrisy where there is none is that you have an axiom which is not shared by your disputant.

To you, as far as I can tell from your writings, it seems to be axiomatic that the Establishment determine what is right and what is appropriate. Your disputants do not hold as an axiom the correctness of the Establishment. If one cannot assume that the protesters are wrong by definition, simply because they are dissenting, it becomes much harder to determine to what lengths it is reasonable for a protest to go to: except by examining the issue which is being protested about in detail and making a considered assessment. As a result, people on the left wing have a tendency towards considering the merits of an issue or argument, rather than the identity of the person putting it, to be significant in determining what to do next.

The political left in the UK does fall victim to this to some extent. There’s a lot of people who will still vote for Labour just because they’re not the Conservatives: in spite of the fact that Labour stopped being a left-wing party circa autumn 1994.

To all those right wingers trying to get people to condone this plot to eliminate the East Midlands’ entire power supply – frankly if the police had uncovered any dramatic threat to anyone or anything significant they would be exaggerating it and leaking it to the Sun by now, not making what are quite clearly very deliberately vague insinuations about “equipment” and “plots” which could describe just about anything.

I’m a bit mystified as to why more information isn’t appearing from the protesters’ side, though – gag orders?

John Q To you, as far as I can tell from your writings, it seems to be axiomatic that the Establishment determine what is right and what is appropriate. Your disputants do not hold as an axiom the correctness of the Establishment.

You couldn’t have got me more wrong, mate.

http://lpuk.blogspot.com/2009/04/arresting-freedom.html

I started off by complaining about the police arresting people for what they might be thinking about doing (as they did to the miners in 1984).

Condoning that leads us to thought crime and thought police.

Tim f However, in all these circumstances I’d accept the legal legitimacy of proportionate police action

It’s Tim that’s supporting the establishment!!!!

There is nothing wrong with pre-emptive arrest in itself – the individual circumstances of an arrest determine whether it is OK or not.

There seems to be some excitement about boltcutters and other “specialist equipment”, probably belonging to people who need them for work.