No power soon? Police hold 114 in power protest

Generali

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Go & find me 1 person who has ever been convicted of conspiracy to commit aggrevated trespass..

Unless you know otherwise, isn't the point that you had a bunch of people who were trying to disrupt the working of a power station? That's not a legitimate form of protest and nor should it be.

If you want to march along Southampton Row then nobody has a problem with that but you can't turn the lights out, whatever your grievance.

JasonLVC

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Go & find me 1 person who has ever been convicted of conspiracy to commit aggrevated trespass..

Your request is disingineous on the basis there is a big difference between being arrested for an offence and being convicted for one.

"Conspiracy" is a catch all phrase that allows the police to act where more than two people 'conspire' to perform an illegal act (that is, they haven't commited any criminal act as yet).

Conspiracy is difficult to prove in a court of law as the police need to be able to prove there was agreement between the parties (ie, if they can confirm two or more people intended to break the law, then you've got conspiracy). Conspiracy more often crops up in 'conspiracy to defraud' (ie, intending to fiddle benefits) or when trying to knobble witnesses in criminal cases - but conspiracy is a criminal act and a matter for the criminal courts, not civil ones. Thus conspiring to trespass takes it over the fence of the civil court so to speak.

Conspiracy is similar but not identical to incitement - again, difficult to prove incitement - although if the attendees had emails purporting to commiting such an act, etc then they'll have incriminated themselves the same way Islam extremists incite people to kill gays, Jews, etc.

So the police CAN arrest people for conspiracy and then pending their investigation and interview of those arrested they are then unlikely to get a conviction, nonetheless, it did the job of stopping potential disruption and the police have done nothing wrong in arresting and then releasing such people.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

JasonLVC wrote: »

Your request is disingineous on the basis there is a big difference between being arrested for an offence and being convicted for one.

All released on bail without charge.

Now there is a funny thing.

No sign of a shread of evidence.

No surprise there.

Let alone the fact conspiracy to commit aggrevated trespass DOESNT even exist as a charge.

"Specialist Equipment" was a set of bolt cutters found. It wouldnt surprise me if they were the poperty of the school anyway.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

JasonLVC wrote: »

Conspiracy is similar but not identical to incitement - again, difficult to prove incitement - although if the attendees had emails purporting to commiting such an act, etc then they'll have incriminated themselves the same way Islam extremists incite people to kill gays, Jews, etc.

No its not. Its nothing like it.

The above is 100% a criminal offence & not graded.

What a silly example.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Generali wrote: »

Unless you know otherwise, isn't the point that you had a bunch of people who were trying to disrupt the working of a power station? That's not a legitimate form of protest and nor should it be.

If you want to march along Southampton Row then nobody has a problem with that but you can't turn the lights out, whatever your grievance.

Like I have said before, I dont agree with "them".

But, 114 people having a meeting is not an offence.

& this is plain an simply abuse of power & illegal, unless they were arrested under terror laws..

Generali

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Like I have said before, I dont agree with "them".

But, 114 people having a meeting is not an offence.

& this is plain an simply abuse of power & illegal, unless they were arrested under terror laws..

But it isn't that simple is it as it depends what the meeting was about. If it was the provisional wing of the PTA then they shouldn't have been arrested. If people were seriously discussing trying to shut down or disrupt a power station then they should be nicked before it goes any further.

I'm no legal expert but presumably our elected representatives have at some point since 1215 made conspiring to close down a major piece of infrastructure a criminal action.

JasonLVC

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

No its not. Its nothing like it.

The above is 100% a criminal offence & not graded.

What a silly example.

So I can see you are not here for informed debate then?.

If you are not going to read posts and just draw your own conclusions, then a debating forum is probably not the best place for you.

Incitement and conspiracy are both criminal offences - go and have a proper look at your law books. If you read the actual law, you'd see that trespass is a complex area of both civil and criminal law and that what I was trying to explain to you (but you're ignoring) is that conspiracy + trespass can be an arrestable offence.

Incitement to riot and conspiracy to riot ARE the same....in the same way that incitement to trespass and conspiracy to trespass are the same - both criminal acts. You don't have to be caught doing it to be caught.

If you've gotten it into your head that trespass is some fluffy, squatters rights civil only act, then we're never going to move this debate forwards.

As can be seen in my last post, I'd already concluded that there would be no charges pressed against the protesters but lets see if any of them actually press charges against the police?.

JasonLVC

Generali wrote: »

I'm no legal expert but presumably our elected representatives have at some point since 1215 made conspiring to close down a major piece of infrastructure a criminal action.

The law is complex but quite clear. In the old days you had to physically trespass under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994 but then they married this up with the Criminal Law Act of 1977/81 to widen the scope of arrestable offences...and it can get quite creative.

Want to stop a protest outside a public building?. Arrest them on 'obstruction of the public highway' and problems resolved. Ask protestor to move and and they say Foff?. Obstructing a police officer and/or foul language in public and problems resolved.

Trespasory assemblies - no permission to congregate on private land - off to nick you go...and finally harrasment and distress - if the protestors are upsetting people and don't stop alarming the public, another breach of the peace has been committed.

Do we get the feeling that the right to protest is somewhat not as open and free form as we all first thought?. If we want a debate on the governments oppression to the right to protest then by all means but I cannot see what the police have done wrong here other than use a very wide raft of laws for their own benefit.

JasonLVC

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

"Specialist Equipment" was a set of bolt cutters found. It wouldnt surprise me if they were the poperty of the school anyway.

Going equipped comes under the Theft Act of 1968 if they are going to steal something or under the Criminal Damage Act of 1971 if they are intending to damage property (and bolt cutters are used to cut fences/damage property, ergo criminal damage may ensue).

A protester on their way to a march or at a meeting 'equipped' will trigger another criminal arrest - again, a simple denial of who owns the cutters will be enough to ensure no prosecution - but the police's job is to arrest where they suspect or know an offence is or is about to be committed, it is up to the CPS to decide if they want to have the person stand trial.

Rochdale_Pioneers

I heard a green type on the Today programme earlier. Apparently the damage being done by coal fired power stations is "suicidal" and they MUST be turned off right this second.

If their aim really is to destroy our economy by shutting off the power then they need to be dealt with.