Police abuse and pre-emptive arrests of climate protestors

See here.

A few key passages:

Being arrested and charged with a crime you didn’t commit is far less glamorous in real life than in the movies. It happened to me just before midnight, on April 12th 2009. I was huddled in my sleeping bag on a cold school floor in Nottingham when the police burst in to arrest me and 113 others in a highly controversial ‘pre-emptive’ raid on a meeting of climate campaigners. It was the biggest pre-emptive environmental protest arrest in British history, and the starting point for a truly bizarre sequence of events involving a ‘conspiracy to commit trespass’, an undercover police officer, a world-famous climate scientist, a coal-fired power station, two crown court trials, a spectacular legal U-turn and the greatest piece of climate activism that never was.

Apparently, shutting the power station for a week would prevent the release of 150,000 tonnes of climate-wrecking CO 2, saving lives, homes and livelihoods around the world. No-one in the UK would lose electric power while the station was shut down, thanks to the National Grid.

We were held there for what seemed like hours as the police tramped around the building barking into their radios, but eventually all 114 of us were shepherded into police vans. Apparently, attending a meeting and listening to some action briefings was enough for me to be arrested, photographed, fingerprinted, have my DNA taken, and be held in a police cell for nearly 20 hours. All 114 arrestees had their phones, wallets and money confiscated, before being released onto the streets of Nottingham in the middle of the night. Many people also had their homes raided or were given restrictive bail conditions.

Once we’d got over the initial shock, we realised that this had serious implications for the six of us in the second trial. Kennedy was at the Nottingham school for the whole of that April briefing meeting, and must have submitted some kind of report of the day to his superiors. That report would show that most people at the meeting didn’t know the plan in advance, and be of great use in our defence. Surely the prosecution must have known that this evidence existed – which means they must have chosen to conceal it and continue with the case regardless.

This isn’t the Sopranos. Mark Kennedy wasn’t infiltrating the mob. He was embedded for seven years, at huge public expense, in a network of environmental and social activists. These are people who organise protest camps, blockades, sit-ins and occupations; they disrupt polluting companies, embarrass the government, raise the profile of crucial issues and challenge the status quo, but they don’t represent a threat to the public. In fact, their aim is to protect the public from, amongst other things, disastrous climate change. Despite this, the police are pouring huge resources into oppressive anti-protest tactics which protect, not the public, but the profits of corporations and the reputation of government.

...Why is sleeping on a school floor?

They did a long-term infiltration and sting on a sit-in?

...someone's got some 'splainin' to do.

edited 31st Jan '11 8:50:44 AM by Pykrete

Hey, every loyal citizen knows that environmentalism is only a hop skip and a jump from COMMUNISM!

"The plan was jaw-droppingly audacious: to invade and occupy Ratcliffe-on-Soar, the second-largest coal-fired power station in the country, and ‘calmly but firmly’ shut it down for a week."

Well, you know, invading and occupying other people's property actually is a crime. It looks like the plan involved many people and was all ready to go, hence "conspiracy to..." charges.

Plus it says the charges were dropped.

Yeah, what they did was illegal.

I get that it was illegal (sit-ins often are, civil disobedience and all), just a seven-year infiltration and sting seems rather excessive.

edited 31st Jan '11 9:21:43 AM by Pykrete

Sometimes it isn't. For instance you can wander into someones house and do whatever you like so long as you don't damage anything or use any of their utilities.

Wait, seriously?

Yep. If the person asks you to leave and you don't you can be charged with a breach of the peace, or if you eat anything or use any of the utilities (going to the bathroom, washing your hands switching on a light etc) you can be charged, but otherwise... no not really.

edited 31st Jan '11 9:50:04 AM by JosefBugman

So in Britain, walking naked into someone's house and pleasuring yourself (as long as you don't switch on a light or anything) is not considered trespassing?

...wow. Glad we're not that far gone yet.

edited 31st Jan '11 9:48:51 AM by Pykrete

No, because then its public indecency and you can be arrested for it. Its when the person is out you can enter if the house has been left unlocked. If the house was locked it becomes breaking and entering.

For instance this is how people in Britain were able to do huge raves in abandoned warehouses despite the owners knowledge, they would simply take the doors of the hinges, bring their own electricity and decks, party till the small hours and then put everything back. No crime committed or damage done.

edited 31st Jan '11 9:51:28 AM by JosefBugman

There's still all manner of immensely creepy things you can do there that may or may not fall into other laws. And removing the doors altogether being an acceptable loophole just seems ripe for abuse.

edited 31st Jan '11 9:52:59 AM by Pykrete

That's called "trespassing". They can shoot you for it.

Proove it and I can provide a crime I can accuse you of.

Being on someone's (clearly marked) property without permission is trespassing, whether you do anything there or not.

Edit: Wikipedia agrees.

"Trespass to land is a common law tort that is committed when an individual or the object of an individual intentionally (or in Australia negligently) enters the land of another without a lawful excuse. Trespass to land is actionable per se. Thus, the party whose land is entered upon may sue even if no actual harm is done."

edited 31st Jan '11 9:59:45 AM by Fighteer

Yes they can SUE, but its not a criminal thing, its a civil one. I went along to a police training thing during my Victim Support training and the example I used above was one the actual policewoman in charge had had to deal with.

Well, shooting is a local thing.

Proove it and I can provide a crime I can accuse you of.

Does leaving anything behind count as vandalism?

It depends, its trespassing in the United States if it falls within the territory of your estate (inside or eternal) if you have made steps that would make it reasonable for a person to believe they could not freely enter. I don't recall it, but it is likely to be a misdeamonor unless they are special circumstances (trespassing on a military base might get you shot).

As for stings, a seven year operation sounds about right it takes a long time to build a case so they will wait and collect as much information as possible before formally pressing charges or acting on them.

In the US it depends on the state. In some states, trespassers are prosecuted as if they were caught breaking and entering. Also, entering someone's home, even if it's unlocked can get you shot in some states.

Why the hell would anyone enter someones home in the first place if they didn't know the person or weren't invited?

Why would you go into someones home when they themselves were not home, unless you agreed to feed their pets or make sure the house was ok or something? That's just stupid!

So if a Burglar rolls up into a house in the UK without using utilities or breaking something, and he's standing in your living room deciding what he might want to take, he's technically not breaking the law until you tell him to leave and he doesn't?

That is one of the most retarded things I have ever heard.

Actually its only if the place is unoccupied. If there is someone in the house when you are broken into then its burgulary and it can be a criminal case. Its if he enters the house, does nothing and then leaves that no crime has been committed whilst the house is without occupants and only if the place was insecure (e.g. not locked) because then its breaking and entering.

But if they didn't break anything and merely "entered" it doesn't count.

Its why warehouses can be used like that, but not actual homes, because the people in there can complain.

edited 31st Jan '11 1:03:39 PM by JosefBugman

Aaaaaand maybe one or two people seem concerned that the cops are using the same kind of tactics usually reserved for the Mafiya or terrorist cells on a bunch of nonviolent protestors who would not actually have done any harm to the British public. The plant owners could have just hired a bunch of security guards and blockaded the plant, no?

I'm not sure that what they were planning was harmless, strictly speaking, and it was illegal.