Sunday, 1 May 2011

Suspension of Habeus Corpus??

The goings on in this country since Thursday begs the question whether this Con Dem illiberal government in conjunction with the Metropolitan Police have suspended habeus corpus.

We have seen dozens of protestors pre-emptively arrested on the flimsiest of grounds such as conspiracy to commit a breach of the peace. Squats have been raided in London and Brighton, plain clothes Police have been snatching people from Soho Square not to mention continuing harrassment of UKUncut activists around the country including Glasgow.

In addition to this Facebook have deleted accounts of individuals and groups planning protests; and I don't suppose Facebook did this without some encouragement from the establishment and security services.

The comments of Christine Jones, Commander in the Metropolitan Police was enough to convince anyone of the attitude of the Police towards demonstrators, "Any criminals attempting to disrupt it..." (The Royal Wedding), which shows that policing of the event was not impartial when protestors were routinely described as 'criminals'. Shouldn't it be the courts that decide what is criminal and not the Police?

It really makes one question which is the most illiberal government the Con Dems or Labour, personally I don't feel I can trust either with my liberties.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Glad you put a link in for Peter Black to follow, might avoid him making a tit of himself, again!

Plaid Alyn and Deeside said...

Anonymous; doubt it some how, the poor little fella can't help himself, Bechod!

Caebrwyn Thompson said...

Not the royal wedding activists say they were held by police to avert protests http://t.co/JSRRHNb via @guardian

Anonymous said...

As expected, British Transport Police sent a document to all railway stations regarded at hub connections to London requesting railway staff to tip off officers for anyone likely to be considered (a) a terroist, (b) a person with a royal fixation such as a stalker, and (c) persons likely to use crowds to commit crime, like robbery. A very laudable request, particularly as the security status on the railway was elevated to 'severe' by the SecTransport. However, in the early hours of the 29th, emails were forwarded from a senior MET liaison officer to railway staff updating these categories to include "persons dressed in an unsuitable fashion likely to cause trouble", with London tip-off numbers to police not on the railway/BTP phone system. What became evident on the day was that persons categorised as those with a 'royal fixation' were impossible to distinguish at face value from the majority of those attending by train, but anyone that appeared to be attending without the regalia for royal celebrations stood out. It was also evident that a change of policy was imposed from a senior level in the MET specifically designed to disrupt any activity not designed to revel in the festivities. Also, that this policy was enforced at the last minute upon other constabularies who's deployment they considered inadequate for what the London MET had determined as an operational, or possibly political, requirement. Both 'security' bulletins were sent to railway staff based around Bristol and Cardiff, and no doubt rail hubs further north. What additional 'security' threat did these individuals pose, other than being in possession of offensive hair cuts ?