31/12/06
Dear Steve
On the radio 4 Today programme the other day, when you were speaking in defence of SOCPA, you qualified your support for the Act by saying that Milan Rai and Maya Evans should not have been prosecuted under SOCPA.
Are you aware that not only have they been convicted, but their appeals against those convictions have this month failed in the High Court? What's more, both have been charged under SOCPA a second time during another Naming the Dead ceremony in Whitehall and Parliament Square. This time both have been charged with organising as well as taking part in an unauthorised demonstration. If convicted they face possible prison sentences of up to 51 weeks as well as fines.
Given that you don't think they should have been prosecuted under SOCPA the first time round, what will you be doing to challenge this second round of prosecutions, and are you still as confident in SOCPA?
Genny
3/1/07
Dear Genny,
I also said that all but one of the applications to demonstrate had been approved and that no European legislature allows unfettered access.
The decision to use the Act was one for the police and the CPS.
I happen to think that they were wrong but cavil at political direction of the Police - tempting though it may be.
I am confident that people who are determined to martyr themselves usually succeed and feel that a little less attention could be paid to them.
I understand that the Police chose not to prosecute eight protestors in the immediate period following the introduction of SOCPA and while I wish that the same latitude had been shown to Maya Evans and Milan Rai I accept that someone had to be first.
Lets see what the court comes up with this time around.
Steve Pound
7/1/07
Dear Steve
Hmm... there are a number of issues about having to apply for authorisation to protest. For one thing it removes the right to spontaneous protest; also, the police can set arbitrary conditions on authorised protests (when, where, for how long and with how many people for instance... and more obscurely with what sort of containers). The police are supposed to uphold the law, not to make it up as they go along. These powers are being used to limit people's freedom of speech with the police setting politically motivated conditions on flimsy pretexts. If you've been following Brian Haw's latest court case, you will know what a pickle the police got themselves into trying to justify the "security" grounds of the conditions they had imposed on his protest.
You say that the decision to use the Act is one for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. Are you really happy that the police can pick and choose who to prosecute? Over a hundred people, including me, took part in the No More Fallujahs weekend. A number of people were arrested or reported for SOCPA offences but only Maya Evans and Milan Rai have been prosecuted to date in spite of an open letter to the Guardian by a number of others attesting to their involvement in the organisation of the weekend. This makes a mockery of the idea that everyone is equal under the law, and could be seen as victimisation. The violent and unprovoked attacks by the police on Barbara Tucker and Steve Jago in the name of SOCPA undoubtedly are victimisation.
It is honourable of you not to want the police to be subject to political direction, but they are and this has increased considerably under New Labour. Look at Blunkett and the £8m wasted policing peaceful protesters at Fairford; thousands of people were searched under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, leading to precisely no successful prosecutions. Then there were the Belmarsh detainees, imprisoned illegally at the whim of the Home Secretary without charge or trial. Presumably the police were required to carry out these arrests. Another indication of political interference is the attempt to centralise control of the police under a committee chaired by the Home Secretary.
Having politicians dictating police policy and priorities without debate or democratic accountability is dangerous, as is giving the police powers which allow them to impose arbitrary conditions on people's right to freedom of expression. Anyway, all I was asking was how you would express your concern given that you didn't think Evans and Rai should have been charged under SOCPA.
You went on to say: "I am confident that people who are determined to martyr themselves usually succeed and feel that a little less attention could be paid to them." It is convenient to condemn people who refuse to accept unjust laws as "determined to martyr themselves". I am sure that you and your colleagues would prefer people to give up and go away, and if they don't then you'd like as little attention as possible to be paid to them. However, with ever-increasing numbers of people prepared to stand up for their right to free speech and with the shortcomings of SOCPA being exposed time and again in the courts, this would appear to be a vain hope.
Genny
8/1/07
Provocative stuff!
The Police take prosecution decisions every second of the day and government can only set the boundaries and apply scrutiny in cases of abuse.
I think that has been done in the cases you refer to!
The problem of spontaneous demonstrations is precisely that they are spontaneous.
Ideally a few people should be able to do so but the experience of recent years has been that large demonstrations that suddenly assemble do cause massive problems for mundane issues such as traffic management and police resources. I think that a fair compromise is the right to demonstrate with prior notice. This could actually defend those protestors who would otherwise be vulnerable to police action justified by the need to act in a case where the numbers, purpose,l ocation and duration of the demonstration is unknown.
I can just hear the Commander on the day saying she or he had to err on the side of caution.
Maybe "martyr" was too strong a word but the principle does apply and I most certainly do not want those who act as a spur to our sometimes quiescent consciences to go away. Perish the thought!
Thanks again and I'm still thinking about some of the points that you make.
Steve Pound.