Very bad news. I hope the Lib Dems speak out against it.

Schizophrenic? Seriously?

Hypocritical, perhaps – if he was arrested for protesting. But it sounds like he was obstructing police from searching tents.

(Which, considering the fact that Parliament was going to be packed with the entire governing structure of the country and therefore a prime terrorist target, and considering Parliament Square would be an excellent spot from which to lob a grenade or fire a gun, is a bit silly. I seem to recall a rather famous incident where some terrorists tried to blow up the state opening of Parliament. Happened one November, if I remember correctly.)

And in any case, lest we forget, the current lot didn’t introduce the protest exclusion zone and are supposedly going to scrap it.

It must be said, I’m finding all this “OMG! Evil Tories being evil!” hysteria increasingly tiresome and desperate.

They’ve been in office two weeks. They haven’t even *started* to do anything yet. The details of their plans remain distinctly unclear. Much of what they were originally planning has been thrown out due to the Lib Dem influence. And pretty much *every* case I’ve seen so far where well-meaning lefty types have pointed to something horrific that they’re supposedly planning, it’s turned out to be nothing of the sort.

If I want to protest I can’t expect to just rock up in my local park and set up an encampment. Nor, for example, can the Countryside Alliance or Stop the War coalition go marching through London every day. In short, there are limits to freedom of protest. Nobody (I hope) is denying that Brian Haw should be allowed to protest against the occupation of Iraq. The point is that nobody has the right to squat on public land indefinitely. I couldn’t care less how scruffy Mr Haw and his fellow “crusties” are nor what their opinions are. If they were a bunch of besuited elderly men campaigning for higher pensions I would still say they don’t have the right to set up an encampment on public land for an indefinite amount of time.

Oh, and it looked to me rather like most other protestors were left happily in place. Surely if you were trying to get rid of the protestors, you’d get rid of *all* the protestors?

Hypocritical, perhaps – if he was arrested for protesting. But it sounds like he was obstructing police from searching tents.

Oh come on, this is Westminster police we’re talking about here – who last year were saying people were chucking plastic bottles at them when Ian Tomlinson went down. ‘Obstructing justice’ is a standard way to take people out.

And in any case, lest we forget, the current lot didn’t introduce the protest exclusion zone and are supposedly going to scrap it.

I don’t see anyone here defending the Labour record on civil liberties. Most of us opposed that too. But Labour didn’t (mostly) pretend that actually wanted to change everything.

The point is, Sunny, neither of us know the details. Claiming that this is a clear case of “OMG hypocrisy!” when we weren’t present and don’t know the circumstances of the arrest is just clutching at straws.

I’m also pretty certain that the police aren’t stupid enough to have tried to arrest anyone as high-profile as Haw without videoing the entire incident. If they’re taking him to court claiming he was obstructing them from searching tents, I’m pretty certain that they’ll have footage to prove it. (Hell, they photograph and video pretty much every protest these days, let’s face it…)

You’d do better to focus on Boris Johnson’s apparent plans to have the entire site cleared. That has far more serious long-term implications for the right to protest in Parliament Square than this single arrest. (But has nothing to do with the government.)

Rank bad journalism there, ranking alongside the Mail’s normal standards in perverting the facts (the implication was that Mr Haws was arrested for protesting, when that is clearly not the case). Sunny, considering your normal ability to puncture a right-wing tabloid myth from half a world away, this seems to be a bit of a blip.

If you are serious about building Liberal Conspiracy into a usable resource (unless you want it as a left of centre propoganda site), you have to start to criticise or at least ignore all journalistic idiocies, as campaigning on this (the police arrested a man who wouldn’t let them search his tent before the state opening of parliament) is going to make you look stupid.

And as for the brilliant ‘Oh come on’ defence you raise, do you think Westminster Police are so stupid as to risk another high profile disaster. Yes, they may have been looking for an excuse to arrest Mr Haws (I doubt many policemen are happy about protest camps on their beats, which is part of why the police should not police themselves) but he did not have to give them one. For God’s sake, he could have held on and at least been arrested for not clearing Parliament Square when required, which would at least be making a statement other than ‘I think I am above the law’.

Wot Nosemonkey and Watchman said.

That said, there are a ridiculous number of people (more than zero) saying stuff like protestors are fine if they are smartly dressed and/or somewhere else.

I love the concept of smartly dressed protesters somewhere else. It’s pleasingly abstract. I don’t know why, but I’m picturing Gilbert and George or Morecambe and Wise in this context.

But protest is allowable, full stop. Please note pitching tents and then trying to restrict entry to said tents are not required elements of protesting…

Watchman, I’m reminded of the Arrested Development episode, Whistler’s Mother: “Lindsay joins a group of protesters and is hustled into a free speech zone. They are unable to get media attention because the media is confined in a “free press zone.” “

Yeah, to the extent that the police actions may have been heavy handed that is down to the Met, not the government who have not exactly had a chance to legislate on such matters so far. Although it will be interesting to see if the government’s commitment to civil liberties goes as far as restricting the kind of tactics used by the police (especially kettling) at the G20 protests.

I love the concept of smartly dressed protesters somewhere else. It’s pleasingly abstract. I don’t know why, but I’m picturing Gilbert and George or Morecambe and Wise in this context.

Haha, yes Gilbert and George definitely. Surrounded by giant turds.

Sunny, you do know, don’t you, that a) schizophrenic does not mean in two minds, and b) it is derogatory and offensive to use the term to denigrate others. Not ‘progressive’ journalism, and also contrary to NUJ guidance.

Agree with article, disagree with use of the word “schizophrenic”. This website has some useful bits about the illness; using the word in a negative way reinforces negative stereotypes and increases discrimination/fear.

Which, considering the fact that Parliament was going to be packed with the entire governing structure of the country and therefore a prime terrorist target

Most of the government structure of the country is in Parliament most days. So you should want these searches carried out most days. Of everyone near Parliament. Including the media.

Do you think the journalist who took the photo of Haw above was searched? Should s/he have been?

Should Gillian Duffy have been searched before she spoke to Gordon Brown? Do you think an SAS team should’ve been sent into her house before he went to apologise?

Brian has been protesting since 2001. On the one hand he represent a fine British tradition of noble bloody mindedness.

On the other his protest (in respect of Iraq/war on terror) has less than successful.

Alex: Do you seriously think that there *shouldn’t* be heavy security around Parliament and/or senior members of government? You think they should end the security checks the public have to undergo on entering the Palace of Westminster? You don’t think it’s an idea to have extra security on days when the movements of those senior members of government have been well publicised in advance? When the Head of State is going to be passing by at walking pace in a flimsy horse-drawn carriage? Really?

As for the rest of your comment, it’s either irrelevant, hyperbolic or silly.

Do you seriously think that there *shouldn’t* be heavy security around Parliament and/or senior members of government?

Security: yes. Searches: no.

You think they should end the security checks the public have to undergo on entering the Palace of Westminster?

Brian Haw was not entering Parliament.

You don’t think it’s an idea to have extra security on days when the movements of those senior members of government have been well publicised in advance?

Again, security is fine. Searches much less so.

In terms of “well publicised”, as I said, most days many senior members of government are known to be in Parliament. It’s fairly trivial to find out the movements of them and the Parliamentary timetable. And most Wednesdays, the PM turns up for PMQs. But people aren’t searched in Parliament Square then.

When the Head of State is going to be passing by at walking pace in a flimsy horse-drawn carriage?

She’s the Head of State not Head of government. Less important than those with real power.

As for the rest of your comment, it’s either irrelevant, hyperbolic or silly.

It’s called reductio ad absurdum. If we have to be worried for our government when they’re near real people on the day of the State Opening of Parliament because of the tewwowists, then we should be worried about them when they meet real people the other 364 days of the year (which the Queen does as well btw).

And I’ll ask again:

Should the journalist who took the above photo have been searched?

Point taken on use of ‘schizophrenic’ – I’ve now changed it

Should the journalist who took the above photo have been searched?

Personally I would say no to that, and it does sound as if the policing was heavy handed in some respects. But as far as I know the decisions on the appropriate police tactics for this kind of event would not be made by the government, and although I would argue that the policing of demonstrations by the Met is certainly problematic and the laws against demonstrating near parliament illiberal, the government has not yet had a chance to do anything about the latter and the former is probably more a matter of the Mayor of London so I don’t see how the charge of hypocrisy can be reasonably be levelled against the government here.

Alex: “Brian Haw was not entering Parliament” – indeed. But your point was about searches all the time, extended to an old woman’s house in Rochdale. I can surely extend it 50 yards across the road?

Also, the point is that Haw was blocking the searching of tents, not people. Tents – especially newly-erected tents that have sprung up in the days prior to a major event – can conceal any number of things. It would be a dereliction of duty for the police *not* to search them.

As for the photographer? It entirely depends on the circumstances – which, again, neither of us know.

And in any case, the issue here – as Andrew points out nice and concisely @22 – is that none of this is anything to do with the current government.

Oh, and just because you seem to be mistaking me for some kind of authoritarian arsehole, I’ve long been on record supporting Haw’s right to protest and against the protest exclusion zone since the whole thing was first announced, and against stupid anti-terrorism tactics for even longer.

But there’s a difference between supporting the right to protest and thinking this country’s anti-terrorism laws are deeply stupid and advocating lax security. You need to get your priorities right – searches (with just cause) are sensible; ID cards, DNA databases, detention without trial, complicity in extraordinary rendition, etc. etc. etc. – all these other unpleasant things that *Labour* brought in – they are not.

“Brian Haw was not entering Parliament” – indeed. But your point was about searches all the time, extended to an old woman’s house in Rochdale. I can surely extend it 50 yards across the road?

Absolutely, but for the third time, a logical extension of having searches outside Parliament, is having searches wherever our government happens to be. Including Rochdale.

Tents – especially newly-erected tents that have sprung up in the days prior to a major event – can conceal any number of things. It would be a dereliction of duty for the police *not* to search them.

Most of the tents weren’t newly erected. They’ve been there for quite a while.

And yes tents can conceal things. So can cars. So can houses. So can clothes.

The idea that people, out in the open, should be searched by the police without coming under reasonable suspicion is I think in violation of a fundamental liberty. It is very much of the “Papers please” mentality.

As for the photographer? It entirely depends on the circumstances – which, again, neither of us know.

Okay, let’s imagine what the likely circumstances were. Brian Haw is being arrested. A journalist, coming round the corner, sees this scene before her. he takes a photo. The police, having finished searching Haw, approach the journalist and start to search her for any terrorist materials because she is in Parliament Square. Is it right that they should be able to do that to her?

And in any case, the issue here – as Andrew points out nice and concisely @22 – is that none of this is anything to do with the current government.

I’m not sure why you or Andrew have pointed that out to me, as I have not said that it’s anything to do with the current government.

Oh, and just because you seem to be mistaking me for some kind of authoritarian arsehole, I’ve long been on record supporting Haw’s right to protest and against the protest exclusion zone since the whole thing was first announced, and against stupid anti-terrorism tactics for even longer.

Well good for you, but you should know that people have a hard time protesting when they’ve been arrested.

But there’s a difference between supporting the right to protest and thinking this country’s anti-terrorism laws are deeply stupid and advocating lax security.

If not having arbitrary searches in the out and open in Parliamentary Square is “lax security”, then so is not having arbitrary searches wherever government officials happen to be in the country.

This is something a lot of people miss in the “war on terror”. What is the point in restricting liquids on planes, when terrorists could use solid or gas explosives instead? What is the point of body scanners at airports, when terrorists could insert their materials into more private areas, or even go blow up buses and trains instead?

If terrorism is something that requires the eternal vigilance of arbitrary searches or strict airport restrictions, then it requires much more than that, because they leave gigantic loopholes open that terrorists could exploit. It is pointless searching Parliament Square for the State Opening of Parliament for terrorists, when any terrorists could just attack government officials somewhere else when there’s lower security. This is an all or nothing thing. And I believe that “all” is far too illiberal, requiring arbitrary searches up and down the country, sometimes on people just walking down a high street going about their daily business.

You need to get your priorities right – searches (with just cause) are sensible; ID cards, DNA databases, detention without trial, complicity in extraordinary rendition, etc. etc. etc. – all these other unpleasant things that *Labour* brought in – they are not.

Priorities? It is possible to both oppose the search of Haw’s camp, and oppose all of those things you list. And I do that.

I don’t know why you’ve highlighted Labour to me. I’ve never supported Labour.

Alex: I think you idea of what “logical” means must be very different to mine.

You seem to be a little obsessed by this police searching thing. It doesn’t sound healthy. More worrying, surely, are the police snipers that pepper the rooftops around Parliament Square whenever the State Opening of Parliament happens?

But yes, yes I do think that the police should (with just cause) have the power to search people when senior members of the government are present, and to search areas where they are going to be present (yes, including the homes of little old ladies in Rochdale). You might ask Stephen Timms why this could be a good idea.

Politicians are major targets for terrorists and nutters and have been thorughout history (sometimes for good reasons). They also have important jobs to perform, and so should be protected.

I also think, however, that senior members of the government should keep this disruption to the public to a minimum. (Cameron should not be allowed to walk to Parliament from Downing Street, and Brown should not be allowed to visit the homes of little old ladies, for instance – these are stupid, unnecessary PR stunts, nothing more, and create a security nightmare.)

Does this mean I think the police should have arbitrary powers to stop and search people *anywhere*? Of course not. Does it mean I think all this nonsense about stopping people from taking photographs of public landmarks is a good thing? Don’t be silly.

But if you’re not disputing the point made @22, then I don’t see why we’re arguing about this here. It’s another matter altogether. The point – which I was originally addressing before you took us on this tedious and pointless sidetrack – is that Sunny and the Indy were trying to make out that Haw was arrested to shut down his protest and that this is something the Tories are responsible for. He wasn’t and they aren’t. The rest is just noise.

It’s sad that these thing are played over party lines.
Right wingers like watchman, nose monkey and UK liberty will defend government abuses like many of the left defended the previous lot’s abuses.
Sad but true.
Take the case of surveillance cameras
1. They will increase of the next 10 years , not because it is the fault of Labour and Tory governments but private indusrty and individuals want them.
I note that UK liberty doesnt ever mention the fact that Boris has asked for an extra 2000 cameras for the tube.
Also I predict that after the next terrorist out rage, and anti terrorist legislation will be rushed through, including the 42 day detention. It will be defended by the rightists as necessary and the circumstances have changed will the excuse

Wait – I’m a right-winger now?

(Yet another example of how silly and knee-jerk this whole thing’s got.)

Wait – I’m a right-winger now?

Yes

Actually I agree with you on the point about policies.
Each should be looked at, and as Straw says, agreed with if they are sensible.
Although I cannot remember that was the case of right wing bloggers.
Interestingly for instance, Gove is putting his department behind Labour’s academy back door privatisation,