Bend it like Andy

You may remember the case of the Policeman who came over all shy? He was a former Chief Constable, a Deputy Commissioner of Scotland Yard responsible for discipline and anti-corruption and head of the anti – terrorist squad making life and death decisions (not necessarily a metaphor) when he suddenly become bashful, sensitive and upset. Yes, this sensitive soul was Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman of Scotland Yard who was responsible for the Metropolitan Police’s unit in charge of the fight against terror. In December 2007 he decided to retire immediately from his £180,000-a-year post, thereby avoiding a disciplinary inquiry or other action in relation to a number of matters. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) examined Mr Hayman's conduct after the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell Tube station and later accused the Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner of misleading colleagues and the public. Mr Hayman, who has spearheaded the fight against Islamic extremism since 2005, has also been questioned over allegedly “inflated” expenses claims and trips abroad with Sergeant Heidi Tubby, his staff officer.

http://daithaic.blogspot.com/2007/12/policemans-lot.html

His decision to step down was another blow for Sir Ian Blair who recruited Mr Hayman after taking over as Metropolitan Police Commissioner in February 2005. Mr Hayman's former colleagues at the time rallied to his support, claiming he had been the victim of a 'dirty tricks campaign' at Scotland Yard. Ian Blair has since gone and Sir Paul Stephenson has taken over with a stated mission to regain squandered public trust and return Scotland Yard to the basics of policing. As such he is in the tradition of respected reforming commissioners such as Robert Mark and Paul Condon but it has to be asked if the stables need to be shovelled out with such frequency is the design wrong? Just how bad the stables still are can be garnered from this report in the Observer;

"Auditors who have examined the American Express accounts of 3,500 officers involved in countering terrorism and organised crime have reported almost one in 11 detectives to the Metropolitan Police's internal investigators. A senior officer appears to have spent £40,000 on his Amex card in one year, without authorisation. Items bought by others without permission include suits, women's clothing and fishing rods..."

"Sources have told the Observer that some detectives had fallen into the habit of withdrawing hundreds of pounds at a time from cashpoints. Other officers appear to have filled in blank receipts from restaurants to account for cash payments."



Hundreds of Metropolitan Police Officers have been investigated for fraud after widespread abuse of corporate credit cards was revealed. Indeed those who have cards withdrawn equates to 1 in 11 of all Scotland Yard’s plain clothes officers, so there is definitely something badly wrong with the Yardie’s culture of entitlement and basic honesty.

Now you would think Shy Andy would have stayed shy having failed to give an account of himself but no sireee, you would indeed be wrong. For in the greatest transformation since Ernest Saunders cast off incurable dementia Andy “I don’t want to give evidence” Hayman has triumphed over his shyness and then some! For one thing he has appeared in the columns of The Murdoch Times as a “security correspondent” giving his opinion on all and sundry to do with policing, Law and Order. Now those of us of Hibernian origin remember that throughout the Northern Ireland conflict the Sunday Times always had security correspondents who pedalled British Security Service disinformation and smears, all the time quoting unamed “Security Services”. Never mind most of their “splashes” were wrong, no retractions, apologies or corrections were ever forthcoming.


Community Policing

Well Shy Andy continues in this proud tradition of Murdoch Press Integrity, giving forth with his “expertise”. The Government crisis committee that deals with events from flu epidemics to terror attacks was condemned by him as a “nonsensical system.” He said the Cobra committee dragged people away from their real jobs when dealing with a crisis. Mr Hayman, who was head of counter terror operations during the 7/7 bombings in 2005, gave details of Cobra in his book The Terrorist Hunters. He was particularly critical of the shambolic operations of the committee, which he revealed meets in a fortified cellar beneath Whitehall. Senior officials who are dealing with the immediate aftermath of a major event are suddenly dragged into a meeting with politicians, he said. “There's a bomb attack and all hell breaks loose. Everyone scrambles — emergency services, police, intelligence agencies, Government departments — and rushes around trying to deal with it. But within an hour we're pulled off the job and summoned to Cobra.”



He says the meeting room is stuffy and often senior officials wander lost beneath Whitehall trying to find it. He adds: “Of course a meeting should be called to co-ordinate the response, and the role of senior people is to detach themselves from the detail and plan ahead. But in my experience, Cobra fails to do that. The first time I attended, I was in awe. There were more knights there than at King Arthur's round table.”

He said politicians are often plunged into meetings on issues they know little about. Speaking about the 7/7 attack he says: “Take Alistair Darling, who was then Transport Secretary. He was on my case all the time, telling me the Underground needed to be reopened. And I kept asking: Do you want me to secure the crime scenes and get the evidence to prosecute the terrorists, or do you want me to get the traffic moving?'”


7/7 attack on The Tube

Speaking in the Times (where else!) to publicise his book he said: “Sometimes the meetings worked but more often they didn't. People would jockey for position in front of influential ministers, squabbling over places at the table. At times Cobra appeared to be little more than a stage for those looking to impress.” Mr Hayman calls for Cobra to be replaced with a committee made up solely of operational officials.

Well now the publication of the book The Terrorist Hunters by Andy Hayman has been blocked by the Attorney General. Baroness Scotland stepped in at the last minute to obtain an injunction preventing The Terrorist Hunters from hitting the shelves today. The book focused on the struggle against Islamic terrorism in the aftermath of the 7 July 2005 attacks on the London Underground which killed 52 people.

http://daithaic.blogspot.com/2008/08/walktalk.html

It also looked at the murder of Russian dissident Alexander Litvinenko and gave a behind-the-scenes glimpse of top-level political and intelligence work. An advisory notice highlighting the injunction, granted by an unnamed High Court judge, was circulated to news-paper editors at 11.45 last night. Further details of the reasons behind the injunction cannot be published for legal reasons linked to continuing criminal proceedings.

Thousands of copies of the 372-page book were delivered to bookshops nationwide ahead of its publication today. Large sections of the book, co-written by former BBC home affairs correspondent Margaret Gilmore, were also serialised in The Times. Sources close to the publication said it was vetted by officials at the Cabinet Office, MI5 and MI6 but no copy was passed to Scotland Yard.

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson has complained that he was not given a preview of its contents. He told a meeting of the Metropolitan Police Authority last week that he was reluctant to give the book more publicity. But Sir Paul said members of the force's watchdog might like to consider whether senior officers should be allowed to publish such books. He said: “I find it surprising as commissioner that I have no right on this occasion to have access to the book before it is published. It is troublesome and it does not help good conduct.”

One senior police insider said: “There is quite a lot of anger in the Met about the book's contents. No one else's memories of some of the events he describes are the same."

Anyway I leave the final word on Shy Andy to one of his former colleagues in the Blue Brotherhood who left this comment on an Evening Standard article;

“Oh Please! I am no supporter of the current status quo, but we really don't need any advice for Andy Hayman as part of his campaign to publicise his book. This light-weight individual was, by common agreement, one of the most ineffectual heads of counter-terrorism we have had in recent years. He left the post hurriedly with an enormous cloud over his head, so his comments should be taken with a shed full of salt.”

Bend it like Andy

You may remember the case of the Policeman who came over all shy? He was a former Chief Constable, a Deputy Commissioner of Scotland Yard responsible for discipline and anti-corruption and head of the anti – terrorist squad making life and death decisions (not necessarily a metaphor) when he suddenly become bashful, sensitive and upset. Yes, this sensitive soul was Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman of Scotland Yard who was responsible for the Metropolitan Police’s unit in charge of the fight against terror. In December 2007 he decided to retire immediately from his £180,000-a-year post, thereby avoiding a disciplinary inquiry or other action in relation to a number of matters. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) examined Mr Hayman's conduct after the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell Tube station and later accused the Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner of misleading colleagues and the public. Mr Hayman, who has spearheaded the fight against Islamic extremism since 2005, has also been questioned over allegedly “inflated” expenses claims and trips abroad with Sergeant Heidi Tubby, his staff officer.

http://daithaic.blogspot.com/2007/12/policemans-lot.html

His decision to step down was another blow for Sir Ian Blair who recruited Mr Hayman after taking over as Metropolitan Police Commissioner in February 2005. Mr Hayman's former colleagues at the time rallied to his support, claiming he had been the victim of a 'dirty tricks campaign' at Scotland Yard. Ian Blair has since gone and Sir Paul Stephenson has taken over with a stated mission to regain squandered public trust and return Scotland Yard to the basics of policing. As such he is in the tradition of respected reforming commissioners such as Robert Mark and Paul Condon but it has to be asked if the stables need to be shovelled out with such frequency is the design wrong? Just how bad the stables still are can be garnered from this report in the Observer;

"Auditors who have examined the American Express accounts of 3,500 officers involved in countering terrorism and organised crime have reported almost one in 11 detectives to the Metropolitan Police's internal investigators. A senior officer appears to have spent £40,000 on his Amex card in one year, without authorisation. Items bought by others without permission include suits, women's clothing and fishing rods..."

"Sources have told the Observer that some detectives had fallen into the habit of withdrawing hundreds of pounds at a time from cashpoints. Other officers appear to have filled in blank receipts from restaurants to account for cash payments."



Hundreds of Metropolitan Police Officers have been investigated for fraud after widespread abuse of corporate credit cards was revealed. Indeed those who have cards withdrawn equates to 1 in 11 of all Scotland Yard’s plain clothes officers, so there is definitely something badly wrong with the Yardie’s culture of entitlement and basic honesty.

Now you would think Shy Andy would have stayed shy having failed to give an account of himself but no sireee, you would indeed be wrong. For in the greatest transformation since Ernest Saunders cast off incurable dementia Andy “I don’t want to give evidence” Hayman has triumphed over his shyness and then some! For one thing he has appeared in the columns of The Murdoch Times as a “security correspondent” giving his opinion on all and sundry to do with policing, Law and Order. Now those of us of Hibernian origin remember that throughout the Northern Ireland conflict the Sunday Times always had security correspondents who pedalled British Security Service disinformation and smears, all the time quoting unamed “Security Services”. Never mind most of their “splashes” were wrong, no retractions, apologies or corrections were ever forthcoming.


Community Policing

Well Shy Andy continues in this proud tradition of Murdoch Press Integrity, giving forth with his “expertise”. The Government crisis committee that deals with events from flu epidemics to terror attacks was condemned by him as a “nonsensical system.” He said the Cobra committee dragged people away from their real jobs when dealing with a crisis. Mr Hayman, who was head of counter terror operations during the 7/7 bombings in 2005, gave details of Cobra in his book The Terrorist Hunters. He was particularly critical of the shambolic operations of the committee, which he revealed meets in a fortified cellar beneath Whitehall. Senior officials who are dealing with the immediate aftermath of a major event are suddenly dragged into a meeting with politicians, he said. “There's a bomb attack and all hell breaks loose. Everyone scrambles — emergency services, police, intelligence agencies, Government departments — and rushes around trying to deal with it. But within an hour we're pulled off the job and summoned to Cobra.”



He says the meeting room is stuffy and often senior officials wander lost beneath Whitehall trying to find it. He adds: “Of course a meeting should be called to co-ordinate the response, and the role of senior people is to detach themselves from the detail and plan ahead. But in my experience, Cobra fails to do that. The first time I attended, I was in awe. There were more knights there than at King Arthur's round table.”

He said politicians are often plunged into meetings on issues they know little about. Speaking about the 7/7 attack he says: “Take Alistair Darling, who was then Transport Secretary. He was on my case all the time, telling me the Underground needed to be reopened. And I kept asking: Do you want me to secure the crime scenes and get the evidence to prosecute the terrorists, or do you want me to get the traffic moving?'”


7/7 attack on The Tube

Speaking in the Times (where else!) to publicise his book he said: “Sometimes the meetings worked but more often they didn't. People would jockey for position in front of influential ministers, squabbling over places at the table. At times Cobra appeared to be little more than a stage for those looking to impress.” Mr Hayman calls for Cobra to be replaced with a committee made up solely of operational officials.

Well now the publication of the book The Terrorist Hunters by Andy Hayman has been blocked by the Attorney General. Baroness Scotland stepped in at the last minute to obtain an injunction preventing The Terrorist Hunters from hitting the shelves today. The book focused on the struggle against Islamic terrorism in the aftermath of the 7 July 2005 attacks on the London Underground which killed 52 people.

http://daithaic.blogspot.com/2008/08/walktalk.html

It also looked at the murder of Russian dissident Alexander Litvinenko and gave a behind-the-scenes glimpse of top-level political and intelligence work. An advisory notice highlighting the injunction, granted by an unnamed High Court judge, was circulated to news-paper editors at 11.45 last night. Further details of the reasons behind the injunction cannot be published for legal reasons linked to continuing criminal proceedings.

Thousands of copies of the 372-page book were delivered to bookshops nationwide ahead of its publication today. Large sections of the book, co-written by former BBC home affairs correspondent Margaret Gilmore, were also serialised in The Times. Sources close to the publication said it was vetted by officials at the Cabinet Office, MI5 and MI6 but no copy was passed to Scotland Yard.

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson has complained that he was not given a preview of its contents. He told a meeting of the Metropolitan Police Authority last week that he was reluctant to give the book more publicity. But Sir Paul said members of the force's watchdog might like to consider whether senior officers should be allowed to publish such books. He said: “I find it surprising as commissioner that I have no right on this occasion to have access to the book before it is published. It is troublesome and it does not help good conduct.”

One senior police insider said: “There is quite a lot of anger in the Met about the book's contents. No one else's memories of some of the events he describes are the same."

Anyway I leave the final word on Shy Andy to one of his former colleagues in the Blue Brotherhood who left this comment on an Evening Standard article;

“Oh Please! I am no supporter of the current status quo, but we really don't need any advice for Andy Hayman as part of his campaign to publicise his book. This light-weight individual was, by common agreement, one of the most ineffectual heads of counter-terrorism we have had in recent years. He left the post hurriedly with an enormous cloud over his head, so his comments should be taken with a shed full of salt.”

A Survival Guide for Decent Folk

An anonymous policeman blogger who has targeted the force and Government ministers was unmasked today after the High Court ruled against keeping his identity secret. Refusing a temporary injunction to prevent a newspaper from identifying the serving detective constable - who goes by the name of Night Jack - Justice Eady said that "blogging is essentially a public rather than a private activity".

For over a year, police detective 'Jack Night' chronicled his working life in an unnamed UK town on his remarkably frank blog Night Jack. His scathing and revealing posts on the reality of policing in Britain have won him an Orwell Prize. Now his ID has been exposed and he has received a written warning from his Force.



Today, the blogger was named as Richard Horton, 45, who serves with Lancashire Constabulary. Mr. Justice Eady also ruled that any right of privacy on the part of the blogger would be likely to be outweighed by a countervailing public interest in revealing that a particular police officer had been making such contributions. Mr Horton's counsel, Hugh Tomlinson QC, submitted that there was a public interest in preserving the anonymity of bloggers.


Richard Horton

The Judge ruled that the mere fact that Night Jack wished to remain anonymous did not mean either that he had a reasonable expectation of doing so. He added: "Those who wish to hold forth to the public by this means often take steps to disguise their authorship, but it is in my judgment a significantly further step to argue, if others are able to deduce their identity, that they should be restrained by law from revealing it." He said that Night Jack's blog mostly dealt with his police work and his opinions on a number of social and political issues relating to the police and the administration of justice.

Well I found his Blog compelling and every time Police complain of their hands being tied by “Bureaucracy” I remind myself that no too long ago their word was law when given in evidence in Court. So much so that a former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Denning, said it was better that Irish defendants should go to jail than he should concede their Appeal on evidence otherwise he would open up “an appalling vista” of Police corruption. Well due to the good work of West Midlands Police and Surrey Constabulary in the Birmingham 6 and Guilford 4 cases this appalling vista was well and truly opened up and the Police threw away public trust.



Indeed the recent comments by Suffolk’s Chief Constable that he would hold public order defendants in cells for 24 hours even though they had no intention of charging them shows the Police willingness to go to the edge of legality and beyond and use detention in Police cells to pressurise and intimidate defendants. I know of a complainant who was pressurised to pursue a complaint she wanted to withdraw by an ambitious newly promoted Police Sergeant and told that they would deliberately arrest and keep the other party in Police Cells over a weekend to ensure they would “crack.”



So I think Night Jack has done a public service with his Blog and in the interest of Blogging Freedom (Freedom FROM the Press) I reprint in full his Blog on A Survival Guide for decent folk, which uncannily echoes the Police Federation’s own advice to Police Officers facing internal investigation “Do not co-operate, say nothing, ring the Federation’s Solicitor, complain.”

Night Jack’s Blog has now been taken down on Wordpress.

www.nightjack.wordpress.com

A survival guide for decent folk.

In these days of us increasingly having to deal with law abiding folk who have fallen foul of the “entitled poor” and those who have learned how to use us to score points and exact revenge, I thought it would be a good idea to give out a bit of general guidance for those law abiding types who find themselves under suspicion or under arrest. It works for the bad guys so make it work for you.

Complain First

Always get your complaint in first, even if it is you who started it and you who were in the wrong. If things have gone awry and you suspect the cops are going to be called, get your retaliation in first. Ring the cops and allege for all you are worth. If you can work a racist or homophobic slant into it so much the better.



Make a counter allegation

Regardless of the facts, never let the other side be blameless. If they beat you to the phone, ring anyway and make a counter allegation against them. Again racism or homophobia are your friends. If you are not from a visible minority ethnic culture, may I suggest that that the phrase “You gay bastard” or similar is always useful. In extremis allege sexual assault. It gives us something to bargain with when getting the other person to drop their complaint on a quid-pro-quo basis.

Never explain to the Police

If the Police arrive to lock you up, say nothing. You are a decent person and you may think that reasoning with the Police will help. “If I can only explain, they will realise it is all a horrible mistake and go away”. Wrong. We do want to talk to you on tape in an interview room but that comes later. All you are doing by trying to explain is digging yourself further in. We call that stuff a significant statement and we love it. Decent folk can’t help themselves.

Admit Nothing

To do anything more than lock you up for a few hours we need to prove a case. The easiest route to that is your admission. Without it, our case may be a lot weaker, maybe not enough to charge you with. In any case, it is always worth finding out exactly how damning the evidence is before you fall on your sword. So don’t do the decent and honourable thing and admit what you have done. Don’t even deny it or try to give your side of the story. Just say nothing.



Keep your mouth shut

Say as little as possible to us. At the custody office desk a Sergeant will ask you some questions. It is safe to answer these. For the rest, say nothing.

Claim Suicidal Thoughts

A debatable one this. Claiming to be thinking about topping yourself has several benefits. If you can keep it up, it might just bump up any compensation payable later. On the other hand you may find yourself in a paper suit with someone watching your every move.

Always, always, always have a solicitor

Duh. No brainer this one. Unless you know 100% for sure that your mate the solicitor does criminal law and is good at it, ask for the Duty Solicitor. They do criminal law and they are good at it. Then listen to what the solicitor says and do it. Their job is to get you off without the Cops laying a glove on you if at all possible. It is what they get paid for. They are free to you. There is no down side. Now decent folks think it makes them look like they have something to hide if they ask for a solicitor. Irrelevant. Going into an interview without a solicitor is like taking a walk in Tottenham with a Rolex. Bad things are very likely to happen to you.



Actively complain about every officer and everything they do

Did they cuff you when they brought you in? Were they rude to you? Did they racially or homophobically abuse you? Didn’t get fed? Cell too cold? You are decent folk who don’t want to make a fuss but trust me, it pays to whinge and no matter how trivial and / or poorly founded your complaint there are people who will uncritically listen to you and try and prove the complaint on your behalf. Some of them are even police officers.

Show no respect to the legal system or anybody working in it

You think that if you are a difficult, unpleasant, sneering, unco-operative and rude things will go badly for you and you will be in more trouble. No sirree Bob. It seems that in fact the worse you are, the easier things will go for you if, horror of horrors, you do end up convicted. Remember to fake a drink problem if you haven’t developed one as a result of dealing with us already. Magistrates and Judges do seem to like the idea that you are basically good but the naughty alcohol made you do it. They treat you better. Crazy I know but true.

So there you go, basically anything you try and do because you are decent and straightforward hurts you badly. Act like an habitual, professional, lifestyle criminal and chances are you will walk away relatively unscathed. Copy the bad guys; it’s what they do for a living.

A Survival Guide for Decent Folk

An anonymous policeman blogger who has targeted the force and Government ministers was unmasked today after the High Court ruled against keeping his identity secret. Refusing a temporary injunction to prevent a newspaper from identifying the serving detective constable - who goes by the name of Night Jack - Justice Eady said that "blogging is essentially a public rather than a private activity".

For over a year, police detective 'Jack Night' chronicled his working life in an unnamed UK town on his remarkably frank blog Night Jack. His scathing and revealing posts on the reality of policing in Britain have won him an Orwell Prize. Now his ID has been exposed and he has received a written warning from his Force.



Today, the blogger was named as Richard Horton, 45, who serves with Lancashire Constabulary. Mr. Justice Eady also ruled that any right of privacy on the part of the blogger would be likely to be outweighed by a countervailing public interest in revealing that a particular police officer had been making such contributions. Mr Horton's counsel, Hugh Tomlinson QC, submitted that there was a public interest in preserving the anonymity of bloggers.


Richard Horton

The Judge ruled that the mere fact that Night Jack wished to remain anonymous did not mean either that he had a reasonable expectation of doing so. He added: "Those who wish to hold forth to the public by this means often take steps to disguise their authorship, but it is in my judgment a significantly further step to argue, if others are able to deduce their identity, that they should be restrained by law from revealing it." He said that Night Jack's blog mostly dealt with his police work and his opinions on a number of social and political issues relating to the police and the administration of justice.

Well I found his Blog compelling and every time Police complain of their hands being tied by “Bureaucracy” I remind myself that no too long ago their word was law when given in evidence in Court. So much so that a former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Denning, said it was better that Irish defendants should go to jail than he should concede their Appeal on evidence otherwise he would open up “an appalling vista” of Police corruption. Well due to the good work of West Midlands Police and Surrey Constabulary in the Birmingham 6 and Guilford 4 cases this appalling vista was well and truly opened up and the Police threw away public trust.



Indeed the recent comments by Suffolk’s Chief Constable that he would hold public order defendants in cells for 24 hours even though they had no intention of charging them shows the Police willingness to go to the edge of legality and beyond and use detention in Police cells to pressurise and intimidate defendants. I know of a complainant who was pressurised to pursue a complaint she wanted to withdraw by an ambitious newly promoted Police Sergeant and told that they would deliberately arrest and keep the other party in Police Cells over a weekend to ensure they would “crack.”



So I think Night Jack has done a public service with his Blog and in the interest of Blogging Freedom (Freedom FROM the Press) I reprint in full his Blog on A Survival Guide for decent folk, which uncannily echoes the Police Federation’s own advice to Police Officers facing internal investigation “Do not co-operate, say nothing, ring the Federation’s Solicitor, complain.”

Night Jack’s Blog has now been taken down on Wordpress.

www.nightjack.wordpress.com

A survival guide for decent folk.

In these days of us increasingly having to deal with law abiding folk who have fallen foul of the “entitled poor” and those who have learned how to use us to score points and exact revenge, I thought it would be a good idea to give out a bit of general guidance for those law abiding types who find themselves under suspicion or under arrest. It works for the bad guys so make it work for you.

Complain First

Always get your complaint in first, even if it is you who started it and you who were in the wrong. If things have gone awry and you suspect the cops are going to be called, get your retaliation in first. Ring the cops and allege for all you are worth. If you can work a racist or homophobic slant into it so much the better.



Make a counter allegation

Regardless of the facts, never let the other side be blameless. If they beat you to the phone, ring anyway and make a counter allegation against them. Again racism or homophobia are your friends. If you are not from a visible minority ethnic culture, may I suggest that that the phrase “You gay bastard” or similar is always useful. In extremis allege sexual assault. It gives us something to bargain with when getting the other person to drop their complaint on a quid-pro-quo basis.

Never explain to the Police

If the Police arrive to lock you up, say nothing. You are a decent person and you may think that reasoning with the Police will help. “If I can only explain, they will realise it is all a horrible mistake and go away”. Wrong. We do want to talk to you on tape in an interview room but that comes later. All you are doing by trying to explain is digging yourself further in. We call that stuff a significant statement and we love it. Decent folk can’t help themselves.

Admit Nothing

To do anything more than lock you up for a few hours we need to prove a case. The easiest route to that is your admission. Without it, our case may be a lot weaker, maybe not enough to charge you with. In any case, it is always worth finding out exactly how damning the evidence is before you fall on your sword. So don’t do the decent and honourable thing and admit what you have done. Don’t even deny it or try to give your side of the story. Just say nothing.



Keep your mouth shut

Say as little as possible to us. At the custody office desk a Sergeant will ask you some questions. It is safe to answer these. For the rest, say nothing.

Claim Suicidal Thoughts

A debatable one this. Claiming to be thinking about topping yourself has several benefits. If you can keep it up, it might just bump up any compensation payable later. On the other hand you may find yourself in a paper suit with someone watching your every move.

Always, always, always have a solicitor

Duh. No brainer this one. Unless you know 100% for sure that your mate the solicitor does criminal law and is good at it, ask for the Duty Solicitor. They do criminal law and they are good at it. Then listen to what the solicitor says and do it. Their job is to get you off without the Cops laying a glove on you if at all possible. It is what they get paid for. They are free to you. There is no down side. Now decent folks think it makes them look like they have something to hide if they ask for a solicitor. Irrelevant. Going into an interview without a solicitor is like taking a walk in Tottenham with a Rolex. Bad things are very likely to happen to you.



Actively complain about every officer and everything they do

Did they cuff you when they brought you in? Were they rude to you? Did they racially or homophobically abuse you? Didn’t get fed? Cell too cold? You are decent folk who don’t want to make a fuss but trust me, it pays to whinge and no matter how trivial and / or poorly founded your complaint there are people who will uncritically listen to you and try and prove the complaint on your behalf. Some of them are even police officers.

Show no respect to the legal system or anybody working in it

You think that if you are a difficult, unpleasant, sneering, unco-operative and rude things will go badly for you and you will be in more trouble. No sirree Bob. It seems that in fact the worse you are, the easier things will go for you if, horror of horrors, you do end up convicted. Remember to fake a drink problem if you haven’t developed one as a result of dealing with us already. Magistrates and Judges do seem to like the idea that you are basically good but the naughty alcohol made you do it. They treat you better. Crazy I know but true.

So there you go, basically anything you try and do because you are decent and straightforward hurts you badly. Act like an habitual, professional, lifestyle criminal and chances are you will walk away relatively unscathed. Copy the bad guys; it’s what they do for a living.

The Law Exposed

The policing of the G20 protests in London earlier this month has dominated the headlines over the past couple of weeks, with accusations of officers being heavy-handed towards protesters. More than 180 complaints stemming from the protests have been received by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. It has launched three investigations into allegations of assault, including one minutes before the death of newspaper seller Ian Tomlinson. Much of the public concern has been based on images of the policing operation including Ian Tomlinson being assaulted and, according to a second autopsy, dying of internal haemorrhaging. The initial Police statement said he had no contact with the Police and died of a heart attack. Public concern has also been fuelled by pictures of officers covering their ID numbers and refusing to allow themselves to be identified, in breach of regulations.

However despite the Police relying on CCTV and extensive videoing of protestors themselves the law in the UK has been changed so you and I could be committing an offence by photographing the Police or even, for instance, Police Officers cars which are habitually illegally parked around New Scotland Yard in Westminster, in areas where you and I would be fined and clamped.

From 16th February 2009 anyone taking a photograph of a police officer could be deemed to have committed a criminal offence. That is because of a new law - Section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act - which has come into force. It permits the arrest of anyone found "eliciting, publishing or communicating information" relating to members of the armed forces, intelligence services and police officers, which is "likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism". That means anyone taking a picture of one of those people could face a fine or a prison sentence of up to 10 years, if a link to terrorism is proved.


NUJ protest - New Scotland Yard

The law has angered photographers, both professional and amateur, who fear it could exacerbate the harassment they already sometimes face and a group gathered outside New Scotland Yard for a "mass picture-taking session" in protest. The event was organised by the National Union of Journalists. It insisted the right to take pictures in public places is "a precious freedom" that must be safeguarded. NUJ organiser John Toner said: "Police officers are in news pictures at all sorts of events - football matches, carnivals, state processions - so the union wants to make it clear that taking their pictures is not the act of a criminal."

Despite the usual assurances given by the Home Secretary, Whacky Jacqui Smith, at the time there is already evidence of the law being abused. Consider the case of an Austrian visitor who fell foul of the Plods in Walthamstow, London, where suspicious photography ranks high on policing priorities! Like most visitors to London, Klaus Matzka and his teenage son Loris took several photographs of some of the city's sights, including the famous red double-decker buses. More unusually perhaps, they also took pictures of the Vauxhall bus station, which Matzka regards as "modern sculpture".

But the tourists have said they had to return home to Vienna without their holiday pictures after two policemen forced them to delete the photographs from their cameras in the name of preventing terrorism. Matzka, a 69-year-old retired television cameraman with a taste for modern architecture, was told that photographing anything to do with transport was "strictly forbidden". The policemen also recorded the pair's details, including passport numbers and hotel addresses.

In a letter to the Guardian, Matzka wrote: "I understand the need for some sensitivity in an era of terrorism, but isn't it naive to think terrorism can be prevented by terrorising tourists?" The Metropolitan police said it was investigating the allegations. In a telephone interview from his home in Vienna, Matzka said: "I've never had these experiences anywhere, never in the world, not even in Communist countries." He described his horror as he and his 15-year-old son were forced to delete all transport-related pictures on their cameras, including images of Vauxhall underground station.

"Google Street View is allowed to show any details of our cities on the World Wide Web," he said. "But a father and his son are not allowed to take pictures of famous London landmarks."


Klaus Matzka and his son Loris

The British Journal of Photography recently reported an incident involving a photographer in Cleveland who was stopped by a police officer while taking pictures of ships. He was asked if he was connected to terrorism, which he wasn't, and told his details would be kept on file. A Cleveland police spokeswoman told the journal that "in order to verify a person's actions as being entirely innocent," anyone in "suspicious circumstances" could be asked to explain themselves.

Photojournalist Marc Vallée is among those angry at the law. He specialises in covering protests and fears for the implications of Section 76. "Alarm bells really are ringing," he told the BBC News website. "I know some of it sounds a bit funny. Train spotters being stopped for taking pictures, that sort of thing, but I've spoken to people who've been on their own, at night and they're surrounded by several officers. It can be intimidating.

"It may be that officers are just doing their best with a bad law, but if that's the case, they need guidance to tell them, 'Stop harassing photographers.'" Mr Vallée also pointed out that members of the Royal Family were part of the Armed Forces. "Are we going to be stopped from photographing them?" he said.

The NUJ said some police officers wrongly believed they had the right to delete photographers' images. Other critics, meanwhile, fear the new law could inhibit their right to peaceful, democratic protest. Leo Murray is a spokesman for climate change campaign group Plane Stupid. His members film any direct action they take. "It's outrageous," he told the BBC News website. "It's yet another in a long line of measures designed to erode people's civil liberties. "Being able to film the police has completely changed the way they are able to police our protests. It's made us much, much safer and the risks of a violent confrontation have almost disappeared. If we couldn't film they could act with impunity, they could just mete out violence with the confidence that nobody would find out. There's absolutely no way we are going to observe this ban. If they try to bring charges against us we will fight them in the courts."


The rather wonderful Vauxhall Bus Station

In a statement, Number 10 said that while there were no legal restrictions on taking pictures in public places, "the law applies to photographers as it does to anybody else. So there may be situations in which the taking of photographs may cause or lead to public order situations, inflame an already tense situation, or raise security considerations," it said. Photographers could therefore be asked to "move on" for the safety of themselves or others. "Each situation will be different and it would be an operational matter for the police officer concerned as to what action should be taken," the statement added.

This discretion, however, is what some feel is the key problem with the law. Critics fear the new law could stop them photographing legitimate protests Neil Turner, vice chairman of the British Press Photographers' Association, said he believed there was no intention among senior ranks of the police to prevent legitimate photography. "The problems that we can see arising are with junior officers using the legislation to overcome situations that they find uncomfortable or where they make judgements about photography and don't know how to apply the legislation on the ground," he said.

"We firmly expect that there will be inappropriate uses of the act and that someone will end up in front of a judge before there is some clarity and before the purpose of the act is properly defined." The Metropolitan Police insisted the law was intended to protect counter-terrorism officers and any prosecution would have to be in the public interest. "For the offence to be committed, the information would have to raise a reasonable suspicion that it was intended to be used to provide practical assistance to terrorists," it said. "Taking photographs of police officers would not, except in very exceptional circumstances, be caught by this offence."

Austin Mitchell MP tabled a motion in the Commons that has drawn on cross-party support from 150 other MPs, calling on the Home Office and the police to educate officers about photographers' rights. Mr Mitchell, himself a keen photographer, was challenged twice, once by a lock-keeper while photographing a barge on the Leeds to Liverpool canal and once on the beach at Cleethorpes. "There's a general alarm about terrorism and about paedophiles, two heady cocktails, and police and PCSOs [police community support officers] and wardens and authorities generally seem to be worried about this."

Photographers have every right to take photos in a public place, he says, and it's crazy for officials to challenge them when there are so many security cameras around and so many people now have cameras on phones. But it's usually inexperienced officers responsible. "If a decision is made to crack down on photographers, it should be made at the top. It's a general officiousness and a desire to interfere with people going about their legitimate business."

But in Britain this sort of attitude is new. So what is the law? "If you are a normal person going about your business and you see something you want to take a picture of, then you are fine unless you're taking picture of something inherently private," says Hanna Basha, partner at solicitors Carter-Ruck. "But if it's the London Marathon or something, you're fine." There are also restrictions around some public buildings, like those involved in national defence. And under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, police officers may randomly stop someone without reasonable suspicion, providing the area has been designated a likely target for an attack.


Police Poster

Child protection has been an issue for years, says Stewart Gibson of the Bureau of Freelance Photographers, but what's happened recently is a rather odd interpretation of privacy and heightened fears about terrorism. "They [police, park wardens, security guards] seem to think you can't take pictures of people in public places. It's reached a point where everyone in the photographic world has become so concerned we're mounting campaigns and trying to publicise this." It seems to be increasing, he says. "There's a great deal of paranoia around but the police are on alert for anything that vaguely resembles terrorism. It's difficult because the more professional a photographer, paradoxically, the more likely they are to be stopped or questioned. "If people were using photos for terrorism purposes they would be using the smallest camera possible."

In May last year, Thames Valley Police overturned a caution issued to photographer Andy Handley of the MK News in Milton Keynes, after he took pictures at the scene of a road accident. Guidelines agreed between senior police and the media were adopted by all forces in England and Wales last year. They state that police have no power to prevent the media taking photos.

They state that "once images are recorded, [the police] have no power to delete or confiscate them without a court order, even if [the police] think they contain damaging or useful evidence."

So, if Klaus Matzka and his teenage son Loris ever return to London there is no restriction on their taking photos in public places or indeed of the Transport System. London Underground freely allows portable photography on its system provided you do not use a flash. Whilst some find this curious, flashes can trigger fits in epileptics, set off automatic fire alarms and interfere with cameras which are used for security and by the drivers opening and closing doors. However policies are not consistent with for instance Glasgow’s Underground forbidding photography on its system but curiously there is no legal basis for them to do so as even the bylaws have not been amended.

So there you have it in the Great Britain of 2009. How smug we used to feel when tourists were arrested for photographing decrepit Soviet barracks in Eastern Europe in the 1980s or English plane spotters were arrested in Greece in 2001. Serves them right for travelling to dodgy countries, we used to say, because it could not happen here in the Land of the Free!

The Law Exposed

The policing of the G20 protests in London earlier this month has dominated the headlines over the past couple of weeks, with accusations of officers being heavy-handed towards protesters. More than 180 complaints stemming from the protests have been received by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. It has launched three investigations into allegations of assault, including one minutes before the death of newspaper seller Ian Tomlinson. Much of the public concern has been based on images of the policing operation including Ian Tomlinson being assaulted and, according to a second autopsy, dying of internal haemorrhaging. The initial Police statement said he had no contact with the Police and died of a heart attack. Public concern has also been fuelled by pictures of officers covering their ID numbers and refusing to allow themselves to be identified, in breach of regulations.

However despite the Police relying on CCTV and extensive videoing of protestors themselves the law in the UK has been changed so you and I could be committing an offence by photographing the Police or even, for instance, Police Officers cars which are habitually illegally parked around New Scotland Yard in Westminster, in areas where you and I would be fined and clamped.

From 16th February 2009 anyone taking a photograph of a police officer could be deemed to have committed a criminal offence. That is because of a new law - Section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act - which has come into force. It permits the arrest of anyone found "eliciting, publishing or communicating information" relating to members of the armed forces, intelligence services and police officers, which is "likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism". That means anyone taking a picture of one of those people could face a fine or a prison sentence of up to 10 years, if a link to terrorism is proved.


NUJ protest - New Scotland Yard

The law has angered photographers, both professional and amateur, who fear it could exacerbate the harassment they already sometimes face and a group gathered outside New Scotland Yard for a "mass picture-taking session" in protest. The event was organised by the National Union of Journalists. It insisted the right to take pictures in public places is "a precious freedom" that must be safeguarded. NUJ organiser John Toner said: "Police officers are in news pictures at all sorts of events - football matches, carnivals, state processions - so the union wants to make it clear that taking their pictures is not the act of a criminal."

Despite the usual assurances given by the Home Secretary, Whacky Jacqui Smith, at the time there is already evidence of the law being abused. Consider the case of an Austrian visitor who fell foul of the Plods in Walthamstow, London, where suspicious photography ranks high on policing priorities! Like most visitors to London, Klaus Matzka and his teenage son Loris took several photographs of some of the city's sights, including the famous red double-decker buses. More unusually perhaps, they also took pictures of the Vauxhall bus station, which Matzka regards as "modern sculpture".

But the tourists have said they had to return home to Vienna without their holiday pictures after two policemen forced them to delete the photographs from their cameras in the name of preventing terrorism. Matzka, a 69-year-old retired television cameraman with a taste for modern architecture, was told that photographing anything to do with transport was "strictly forbidden". The policemen also recorded the pair's details, including passport numbers and hotel addresses.

In a letter to the Guardian, Matzka wrote: "I understand the need for some sensitivity in an era of terrorism, but isn't it naive to think terrorism can be prevented by terrorising tourists?" The Metropolitan police said it was investigating the allegations. In a telephone interview from his home in Vienna, Matzka said: "I've never had these experiences anywhere, never in the world, not even in Communist countries." He described his horror as he and his 15-year-old son were forced to delete all transport-related pictures on their cameras, including images of Vauxhall underground station.

"Google Street View is allowed to show any details of our cities on the World Wide Web," he said. "But a father and his son are not allowed to take pictures of famous London landmarks."


Klaus Matzka and his son Loris

The British Journal of Photography recently reported an incident involving a photographer in Cleveland who was stopped by a police officer while taking pictures of ships. He was asked if he was connected to terrorism, which he wasn't, and told his details would be kept on file. A Cleveland police spokeswoman told the journal that "in order to verify a person's actions as being entirely innocent," anyone in "suspicious circumstances" could be asked to explain themselves.

Photojournalist Marc Vallée is among those angry at the law. He specialises in covering protests and fears for the implications of Section 76. "Alarm bells really are ringing," he told the BBC News website. "I know some of it sounds a bit funny. Train spotters being stopped for taking pictures, that sort of thing, but I've spoken to people who've been on their own, at night and they're surrounded by several officers. It can be intimidating.

"It may be that officers are just doing their best with a bad law, but if that's the case, they need guidance to tell them, 'Stop harassing photographers.'" Mr Vallée also pointed out that members of the Royal Family were part of the Armed Forces. "Are we going to be stopped from photographing them?" he said.

The NUJ said some police officers wrongly believed they had the right to delete photographers' images. Other critics, meanwhile, fear the new law could inhibit their right to peaceful, democratic protest. Leo Murray is a spokesman for climate change campaign group Plane Stupid. His members film any direct action they take. "It's outrageous," he told the BBC News website. "It's yet another in a long line of measures designed to erode people's civil liberties. "Being able to film the police has completely changed the way they are able to police our protests. It's made us much, much safer and the risks of a violent confrontation have almost disappeared. If we couldn't film they could act with impunity, they could just mete out violence with the confidence that nobody would find out. There's absolutely no way we are going to observe this ban. If they try to bring charges against us we will fight them in the courts."


The rather wonderful Vauxhall Bus Station

In a statement, Number 10 said that while there were no legal restrictions on taking pictures in public places, "the law applies to photographers as it does to anybody else. So there may be situations in which the taking of photographs may cause or lead to public order situations, inflame an already tense situation, or raise security considerations," it said. Photographers could therefore be asked to "move on" for the safety of themselves or others. "Each situation will be different and it would be an operational matter for the police officer concerned as to what action should be taken," the statement added.

This discretion, however, is what some feel is the key problem with the law. Critics fear the new law could stop them photographing legitimate protests Neil Turner, vice chairman of the British Press Photographers' Association, said he believed there was no intention among senior ranks of the police to prevent legitimate photography. "The problems that we can see arising are with junior officers using the legislation to overcome situations that they find uncomfortable or where they make judgements about photography and don't know how to apply the legislation on the ground," he said.

"We firmly expect that there will be inappropriate uses of the act and that someone will end up in front of a judge before there is some clarity and before the purpose of the act is properly defined." The Metropolitan Police insisted the law was intended to protect counter-terrorism officers and any prosecution would have to be in the public interest. "For the offence to be committed, the information would have to raise a reasonable suspicion that it was intended to be used to provide practical assistance to terrorists," it said. "Taking photographs of police officers would not, except in very exceptional circumstances, be caught by this offence."

Austin Mitchell MP tabled a motion in the Commons that has drawn on cross-party support from 150 other MPs, calling on the Home Office and the police to educate officers about photographers' rights. Mr Mitchell, himself a keen photographer, was challenged twice, once by a lock-keeper while photographing a barge on the Leeds to Liverpool canal and once on the beach at Cleethorpes. "There's a general alarm about terrorism and about paedophiles, two heady cocktails, and police and PCSOs [police community support officers] and wardens and authorities generally seem to be worried about this."

Photographers have every right to take photos in a public place, he says, and it's crazy for officials to challenge them when there are so many security cameras around and so many people now have cameras on phones. But it's usually inexperienced officers responsible. "If a decision is made to crack down on photographers, it should be made at the top. It's a general officiousness and a desire to interfere with people going about their legitimate business."

But in Britain this sort of attitude is new. So what is the law? "If you are a normal person going about your business and you see something you want to take a picture of, then you are fine unless you're taking picture of something inherently private," says Hanna Basha, partner at solicitors Carter-Ruck. "But if it's the London Marathon or something, you're fine." There are also restrictions around some public buildings, like those involved in national defence. And under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, police officers may randomly stop someone without reasonable suspicion, providing the area has been designated a likely target for an attack.


Police Poster

Child protection has been an issue for years, says Stewart Gibson of the Bureau of Freelance Photographers, but what's happened recently is a rather odd interpretation of privacy and heightened fears about terrorism. "They [police, park wardens, security guards] seem to think you can't take pictures of people in public places. It's reached a point where everyone in the photographic world has become so concerned we're mounting campaigns and trying to publicise this." It seems to be increasing, he says. "There's a great deal of paranoia around but the police are on alert for anything that vaguely resembles terrorism. It's difficult because the more professional a photographer, paradoxically, the more likely they are to be stopped or questioned. "If people were using photos for terrorism purposes they would be using the smallest camera possible."

In May last year, Thames Valley Police overturned a caution issued to photographer Andy Handley of the MK News in Milton Keynes, after he took pictures at the scene of a road accident. Guidelines agreed between senior police and the media were adopted by all forces in England and Wales last year. They state that police have no power to prevent the media taking photos.

They state that "once images are recorded, [the police] have no power to delete or confiscate them without a court order, even if [the police] think they contain damaging or useful evidence."

So, if Klaus Matzka and his teenage son Loris ever return to London there is no restriction on their taking photos in public places or indeed of the Transport System. London Underground freely allows portable photography on its system provided you do not use a flash. Whilst some find this curious, flashes can trigger fits in epileptics, set off automatic fire alarms and interfere with cameras which are used for security and by the drivers opening and closing doors. However policies are not consistent with for instance Glasgow’s Underground forbidding photography on its system but curiously there is no legal basis for them to do so as even the bylaws have not been amended.

So there you have it in the Great Britain of 2009. How smug we used to feel when tourists were arrested for photographing decrepit Soviet barracks in Eastern Europe in the 1980s or English plane spotters were arrested in Greece in 2001. Serves them right for travelling to dodgy countries, we used to say, because it could not happen here in the Land of the Free!

A Conspiracy too far?

After recent Police actions in the UK many are asking where is the right to protest? Indeed taken in conjunction with the increase of the Surveillance State (http://daithaic.blogspot.com/2008/05/surveillance-britain.html ) and the creeping increase in arbitrary administrative justice with spot fines and penalties many are concerned at the erosion of civil liberties in a land which claims to be the home of democracy. Lawful protest has become more difficult in the UK with an exclusion zone around Parliament, state sponsored snooping, stopping and detaining protestors on the way to demonstrations and aggressive and deliberately violent “policing” of demonstrations including the tactic of “kettling” or penning up demonstrators for hours on end. Increasingly the Police in the UK are not forming the “independent mind” required of them when they take their Oath of Office but instead of upholding the law they are increasingly setting themselves above the law and becoming attack dogs for vested interests. So where does this leave the Policing consensus for these very expensive and increasingly unaccountable taxpayer funded “Public Servant’s”, sworn and empowered to uphold the “Queen’s Peace?”

Take for instance the recent attempt to widen the Law of Conspiracy. In Nottingham, England 114 possible demonstrators have been arrested, but not charged in connection with a suspected plan to protest at a power station. Where would this tactic have left the woman’s suffragettes, civil rights campaigners or the Ramblers who trespassed on Kinder Scout to establish the right to roam in Britain's countryside? Are these Stasi tactics of anticipating a crime which may or may not be committed a sign Britain is on the slippery slope to a Police State?

Police have defended their decision to arrest 114 environmental campaigners in connection with a suspected plan to protest at a power station. The men and women were held in Sneinton Dale, Nottingham, on Monday and later released on Police bail. Police said they had been planning to cause "prolonged disruption" at Ratcliffe-On-Soar power station. Meanwhile, the BBC has reported that the station's owner E.ON had already warned its staff about possible protests. No-one has been charged in relation to the case.


Ratcliffe-On-Soar power station

In a letter sent to around 17,000 staff employed nationally by E.ON last month, the company's chief executive said protesters had already tried to shut down power stations and get access to the firm's offices over controversial plans for the company's new Kingsnorth coal-powered station. Staff were also sent a leaflet offering personal safety advice and telling them how to handle possible encounters with protesters. This begs the interesting question did the Police form an “Independent Mind” based on their own evidence or did they proceed on the basis of representations from a German owned commercial power generator?

The local Nottinghamshire MP has criticised police for using "SAS-style" tactics during an operation to arrest more than 100 environmental activists before they had even begun protesting. Eco-campaigners and civil liberty groups have questioned the circumstances surrounding the mass arrests, thought to be the largest single pre-emptive raid on a group of demonstrators in British history. Police used more than 200 officers from five forces to arrest 114 men and women in Sneinton, Nottinghamshire, early on Monday morning because they were allegedly preparing to cause "prolonged disruption" to the nearby Ratcliffe-on-Soar coal-fired power station. Those arrested were found inside the privately owned Iona school, which was closed for the Easter break, and were charged with conspiracy to commit aggravated trespass and criminal damage.



Nottinghamshire Police have defended the raid, saying they believed the protesters intended to engage in an unlawful demonstration that risked shutting down the power plant. Officers found bolt-cutters and locking equipment and suspect that the activists were planning to chain themselves to vital equipment inside the power plant. All those arrested were released on bail yesterday pending further inquiries.
Alan Simpson, the Labour MP for Nottingham South, has questioned the nature of the pre-emptive strike, saying it had serious repercussions for the right to free assembly and had utilised overly heavy-handed tactics. "I am absolutely baffled by the sheer scale of the police operation," he said. "It was very Orwellian. What we saw was over-the-top, smash-and-grab, SAS-style; pre-emptive policing that was massively disproportionate to what was happening on the ground. The scale of policing was what you would expect to be used for a terrorist event or the break-up of a major crime syndicate, not to stop an environmental protest."

Mr Simpson also questioned why it was necessary to smash two double-glazed doors at the Iona school, which has now had to put in new doors and flooring. The school's owners said they had no idea protesters were meeting there. No environmental group has yet claimed responsibility for the planned protest. It is believed groups associated with the Climate Camp network were involved.

More than 200 officers from Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Staffordshire and British Transport Police took part in the raid at the Iona School in Sneinton shortly after midnight on Monday. Supt Mike Manley of Nottinghamshire Police said large amounts of equipment had been found, including food and various devices used for climbing, cutting and locking on to machinery. He said: "We think it was a sophisticated attempt to disrupt what we now believe was Radcliffe-on-Soar Power Station. Our information was that it wasn't to be a lawful protest. This was to be a criminal act against a power station. Had that taken place, we would have now been policing a major protest at a major power station."



There were no reported injuries and local residents said handcuffed suspects sang loudly as they were led away. No-one has been charged with any offence. On Tuesday the nursery at Iona School was closed while workmen repaired doors damaged in the raid. The school said it was distressed at the disruption and damage caused, and the group had had no permission or authority to meet there. Officers also said that some of those arrested had links to climate change groups which had protested at Kingsnorth power station in Kent, Heathrow Airport and Drax power station in north Yorkshire. However, police would not name any organisations.

The coal powered power plant which uses old technology and is highly polluting, which is eight miles south-west of Nottingham, has seen protests by environmental campaigners in the past, including members of Eastside Climate Action. Bob Andrews, from the group, denied any connection with the latest incident. However, he said direct action was the only way to bring about a change in energy policy. He said: "We're saying we've got to change policy, and (the government and E.ON) are not doing it. They're not taking the science seriously. It's got to change. Stop burning fossil fuel."


The polluting power of an old technology coal power station

David Porter, chief executive of the Association of Electricity Producers, said campaigners' calls to stop burning fossil fuels made no sense. "If you suddenly close down our power stations that would be a suicidal policy. The economy of the UK would be seriously disrupted. And there would be social implications of that. It's a nonsensical approach to the problem."

Police tactics when dealing with protests have been placed under heavy scrutiny in the past two weeks following the death of Ian Tomlinson during the G20 protests in London. Mr Tomlinson died of a heart attack shortly after apparently being hit and pushed to the ground by a baton-wielding riot officer. The Independent Police Complaints Commission is investigating.

Protest and free speech are crucial parts of political life, with a strong British history, yet a variety of measures undermine them. Laws intended to combat anti-social behaviour; terrorism and serious crime are routinely used against legitimate protesters. Free Speech has been a victim on the 'War on Terror', with offences of 'encouragement' and 'glorification' of terrorism threatening to make careless talk a crime.

What is more surprising is that the Police have previously been found both to be lying in information they released about a similar demonstration at a power plant, also owned by E.On, in Kent in August and prosecutions against demonstrators who had actually entered the plant and scaled the chimneys were thrown out by English Courts. Police minister Vernon Coaker had to apologise for telling Parliament that 70 officers were injured dealing with protests at Kingsnorth power station. His comments came after it was revealed that injuries sustained during policing at the Climate Camp in August included insect stings and heat exhaustion. There were only 12 reportable injuries, according to a Freedom of Information (FoI) request by the Liberal Democrats. More than 1,000 officers were involved in policing the event near Hoo in Kent, a ratio of 2:1 of the 500 demonstrators involved.

According to information obtained by the Liberal Democrat political party, Kent Police officers and staff suffered only 12 reportable injuries, four of which involved direct contact with another person. The minister’s apology came after it was revealed that injuries sustained during policing at the Climate Camp in August included insect stings and heat exhaustion. More than 1,000 officers were involved in policing the event near Hoo in Kent. The Lib Dems said the eight other injuries included being "stung on finger by possible wasp", "officer injured sitting in car" and "officer succumbed to sun and heat". Kent Police confirmed that 12 officers were required to retire from duty because of their injuries.


Kingsnorth activists found to be acting with "lawful cause" by the Courts

The six Greenpeace activists who were charged were then cleared of causing criminal damage during the protest over coal-fired power which breaches Britain’s treaty undertakings on carbon emissions. The activists were charged with causing £30,000 of damage after they scaled Kingsnorth power station in Hoo, Kent. At Maidstone Crown Court Judge David Caddick said the jury had to examine whether protesters had a lawful excuse. The defendants said the protest was lawful because it aimed to prevent damaging emissions. Energy firm E.ON said lives had been put at risk.

So the important question to be answered by the forces of Law and Order and the Crown Prosecution Service is how did they feel entitled to arrest 114 people on suspicion of “Conspiracy to engage in Aggravated Trespass and to Cause Criminal Damage” when in entirely identical circumstances substantive charges have been thrown out by the Courts? The other important question is how, if any of these 114 people who were deprived of their liberty, are actually charged with an offence they can receive a fair trial given the amount of prejudicial comment presented as fact to the media by the Police? Those of us who care about Civil Liberties will be interested in the answers to these questions, if we ever hear them?


Police confining demonstrators during G20 demo, London, 1st April 2009