Lib Dem conference protester remanded in custody after banner drop
The three men remanded in custody for three days over the weekend, after a banner drop at the Liberal Democrat conference, appeared in court today. The men were remanded as their membership of an “organization” showed that they could not be trusted not to cause danger to the public.
At court all three men pleaded not guilty denying entirely that they caused danger to road users. Even the prosecution accepted in court that “no damage or injury was caused.” Two of the men were bailed on the condition that they do not enter Birmingham City Centre but the other one – a 22 year old from Fleet in Hampshire – was refused bail on the grounds of a previous conviction for aggravated trespass, as well as his continuing trial for the peaceful occupation of the Fortnum and Mason shop on March 26th of this year. He has been sent to prison awaiting a review of his bail.
Clair Lister, a witness, said
“The banner drop was very peaceful and no disruption or danger was caused to Motorists. When the police arrived at the bridge the men left immediately and went willingly into custody.”
Michael Chessum from the National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts and NUS national executive said
“”It is appalling that students taking part in peaceful protest are being victimised in this way. It is ludicrous that anyone would be remanded in custody for a minor traffic charge – and it’s clear that the behaviour of the police and the court is an attempt to intimidate and muzzle protests against the Liberal Democrats’ betrayal of education. Whether it’s kettles, intimidation, or tactical charges – it is becoming increasingly difficult for students and young people to say that they have a meaningful right to protest.”
Presumably refers to the words of people talking all dalian massage the prematurely, consciously or unconsciously say
Ed was bailed yesterday 🙂
http://bannerdropsarenotacrime.wordpress.com/2011/09/26/ed-bauer-bailed/
70-80 were at the solidarity demo which is really huge for Birmingham on a monday afternoon.
@matt
Unfortunately at this point I can’t. There wasn’t a reporter there, we all expected them to get bail and weren’t prepared for it.
We are working hard to get reporters to the court on Monday, but I will also talk to the others who were at the court and we will see about putting the things that we all remember being said in a report with as much detail as possible for you.
I’d rather not rely on just my memory as memories are tricky things and not very reliable. But I am certain of the district judge stating that the conference wasn’t a consideration and it was about Ed being currently on bail.
I’m not, for instance, sure whether she said anything about NCAFC or if it was just put forward by the prosecution, and I’d rather try to get something as factual as possible.
@brum
Yes – my point was that peaceful protest was being permitted elsewhere.
>In terms of the remand, the district judge stated
I’ll respond in detail later (and might have a fisk at Ed’s latest on my own site), but can you point me to a detailed report of the hearing?
Personally, I think we need a They Work For You for Court Hearings.
@Matt
I think I read your earlier comment wrong:
“They could have avoided any risk of arrest by simply not hanging their banner over a road, or taking part in the peaceful protests held elsewhere around the conference.”
Just to clarify, when you said this you mean instead of doing the banner drop they could have gone to the demo, not that they should do neither to avoid arrest? (The difference a comma makes!)
If they had just been arrested, charged and bailed to stay away from the conference, then we probably wouldn’t be kicking up a fuss. I’d still think it was wrong but for me personally it’s just part of how things work, and if the arrest/charge is dropped or unlawful then sometimes you can get compensation for it.
That is what I’d see as standard policing for peaceful protest, especially for something as tame as a banner drop.
In terms of the remand, the district judge stated that she was not taking the conference into account into deciding to remand Ed in custody, but that her decision was that she could not be satisfied that he would not committ further offences, because he is currently on bail for a previous peaceful protest (Fortnum and Mason).
The only way I can interpret that is that she has said that he will peacefully protest at the conference if she does not imprison him, and that it is the courts place to prevent protest by imprisonmnent.
I can accept the need to imprison someone pre-trial if they pose a danger to other people, or if it is very likely they will not show up for the court date, but I can’t accept it when we are talking about peaceful protests, especially when the main reason for concern was being on bail which means that he could be found not guilty for the fortnum and mason case.
I think your focus is too much on the arrest, and not enough on the question of whether someone should be imprisoned pre-trial for a peaceful protest which caused no injuries or damage.
With regards to NCAFC your point is clear, but I should add that NCAFC is not a proscribed organisation, and so whilst I fully understand the police reason for creating suspicion, I do not see how it can be used to justify imprisonment.
Two further points.
1 – Perhaps anyone who is serious about restricting pettifogging use of police powers should be lobbying to get more into the Protection of Freedom Bill.
I’ve been active on things such as restrictions of photographers for a couple of years, and indiscriminate use of police stop and search etc.
2 – This fuss around the ‘banner drop 1’ reminds me of the manufactured fuss around this incident at Holborn, when the police detained a protestor in the standard, non-violent, manner.
@BrumProtestor
Thanks for your reply.
In the context I think the arrests were fine.
On the three being held in custody for 48 hours, it is totally standard that people are held over for a court appearance. Saturday to Monday happens every week in pretty much every town in the country. Any suggestions about that being a punishment are off-beam – the courts do punishment, not the police. The police hold people for appearance in the Courts.
The guy held in custody for a further 7 days has been charged with committing an offence while on police bail. That is standard too, afaik – he has simply been held for 7 days while that is considered.
In this case the alleged offence was directly related to similar ‘protests’ in London, for aggravated trespass (F&M?). That would be taken into account by the magistrates.
I think in the context of a conference full of government Ministers, who are all targets, I’d expect precautionary policing, including of impromptu demonstrations.
This was not a restriction on ‘peaceful protest’ (generic), as there was a demonstration going on at the same time near the ICC; it was a response to a particular protest.
I could go into the activists being NCAFC, and that NCAFC have not dissociated themselves from the violent end of the anticuts movement, and that they are heavily linked to one or other far left groupings, and that the NCAFC website celebrates the Millbank Tower riot, but I don’t need to do so.
I could also note that prominent figures associated with the anticuts movement celebrateing the recent riots, and houses and businesses being burnt down, and that therefore police suspicion is quite justified, but I don’t need to do that either.
All of those would be valid reasons for the police being quite tough on freelance NCAFC actions around the conference.
But all that was done was standard policing.
@Matt
really sorry.. it was a late night last night and an early morning this morning and my brain has finally twigged that you are not the same person as NT, posting under two accounts.
You’re probably best off just ignoring my earlier comment entirely, aside from the bit about the charge and staying away from peaceful protest to avoid arrest.
I will expand on that though – do you really think that people should feel so threatened by arrest that they should not protest? Do you think that is an acceptable situation in a modern democracy?
@matt / NT
Sorry.. I needed to re-read your post, my real name is Tom so I got confused and didn’t see someone else had accused you of being a troll.
Please ignore the bits in my post about that, but I would appreciate more of a response to the reality of the dangers posed by the banner, which you have far overstated.
I do not consider it acceptable to say that people should stay away from peaceful demonstrations to avoid arrest.
There is now a defence and support campaign for the 3 arrestees. Currently just on facebook and twitter, website on the way:
Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/BannerDropsAreNotACrime
Twitter Feed: @BannerNotACrime
There will be a solidarity demonstration on Monday for Ed, at his next bail hearing. 3pm, outside the Birmingham Magistrates Court, Corporation Street, Birmingham.
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=159569750798811
@NT
I wasn’t accusing you of being a troll, don’t read things into my post you want to see.
If you re-read my post, I agreed that comparisons to NAZI’s were way off the mark, so I don’t really understand how you’ve read my comment differently.
Please re-read my post, and respond to the points I make, about the likelyhood of danger if the banner had fallen (which it wouldn’t have done, the right knot, tied properly, makes it impossible – next time you’re at a nightclub or venue, ask yourself how things are suspended from ceilings..), and also the point about how being remanded in custody is the main issue.
When you think about these, I’d also ask you to question why – if there was such a huge danger to road users – did the police not close the road?
The charges of causing danger to road users are because of the alleged debris falling into the road! You have to charge under a section of the law, and the name of the charge is based on that section. I don’t understand your point here at all.
If you can’t respond to points made but instead make up something to respond to, then I will put you down as a troll, but I never claimed or implied that to be the case in my response to you.
Please explain the scenario you are envisaging whereby a banner falling onto stationary or near-stationary traffic present a real risk of danger to road users. Otherwise, wind in your neck and accept that your beliefs about the circumstances of the event are wrong, and that because of that you have reached an errant conclusion.
Please also address the issue of someone being held on remand for at least 10 days for this action, since that is the main issue with regards to the policing.
I shall now be looking out for any form of banner / advertising put up by my Council over or near to a road and if I feel there is the slightest hint of it causing an accident, I will be on the phone to the police!
@BrumProtestor
Note that the alleged offence is not *dropping debris onto the road*, but “causing danger to road users”.
They could have avoided any risk of arrest by simply not hanging their banner over a road, or taking part in the peaceful protests held elsewhere around the conference.
I stand by my comment re: the first 2 commenters.
One about ‘police state’, one about Nazi Germany, and I’m the one that’s the brain dead troll, @Tom. I think not, somehow.
@Alisdair, would you take a guest cross-post on this, as I’d like to respond in more detail than a comment allows, and you have 2 or 3 posts on this, now.
Rgds
This is a disgraceful attack on freedom of speech. People should not be imprisoned for dropping a banner saying what they believe.
Meanwhile Lib Dems have U-turned on cuts that are costing poor people’s lives, sold out on higher education after tricking people into voting for them on false pretences, and are propping up a government that is destroying the welfare state. These actions are ACTUALLY dangerous, in that more people are harmed and are dying earlier because of unnecessary, counterproductive and damaging cuts.
@NT
The banner was securely tied to the bridge, and your thought that it posed a danger is really overstating the case, indeed when the police removed the banner they did not feel the need to stop traffic whilst they did it.
Also, I would guess that you do not know Birmingham, or the location of this banner drop. Broad Street is one of the busiest streets into/out of the city centre, and on a friday night rush hour it barely moves.
I’m guessing your thought is that if the banner fell onto the windscreen of a moving car, blinding the driver, then there would be serious risk of a crash – however, this scenario simply would not occur in this case, even if the banner had come down, any car it went onto would have been moving at less than 5mph, and would likely be stationary.
Finally, the main issue here is not the arrest of the protestors (although I would say this is over the top), it is the fact that they were detained over the weekend in police cells, and one has now been held on remand.
Remember that the police/prosecution themselves stated that this caused no damage or injury, and that the magistrate said she was keeping him on remand because of the risk of him committing further offences – basically saying that it is the duty of the state to prevent someone from peacefully protesting. Whilst comparisons to Nazi’s are well off the mark, the mention of a police state is not – we are not there yet but one of the hallmarks of a police state is the crackdown of peaceful protest or criticism of the government.
@Haggis – Facebook reckons it’s Newport County AFC!
It’s a pity people can”t be arrested (or at least cautioned) for breaking Godwin’ Law.
I have a lot of sympathy for the protesters but this has nothing to do with a “police state” or “Nazis” or the last government granting the police “stupid laws” (the police have plennty of pre-1997 laws to use if they want to arrest you). It seems the police made the arrests under Traffic Offences because the banner was clearly a danger to public safety as anyone who thought about it could see. If it had fallen from the bridge onto a car windscreen the consequences could have been very serious and it the police who would have been criticised if that had been allowed to happen.
I would suggest trying to put yourself into the police officers shoes (distasteful as that may be for some people) and asking yourself what you would have done in the same situation?
Hate Clegg love Notts County Association Football Club? Arrested for confusing motorists?
Labour have a lot to answer for, having granted the police these stupid powers in the first place. And the police need to have a word with themselves for creating martyrs when they could just move them on.
I think it’s called free speech. Or advertising if you pay for it!
@ Matt
Further trouble? By putting a banner up?
You are either challenged IQ wise or a troll, I would suggest the latter.
@Matt are you genuinely saying that 10 days in jail is appropriate for dropping a banner?
they protesters disagree that there was any danger caused and even if something did fall on the road and was a danger, it would certainly have been by accident. Do you really think the public would be endangered if they were out of jail?
It was a pretty mild form of protest to be honest, if you’re going to criminalise that you’re basically saying that nothing beyond politely writing letters or signing a petition should be allowed. Is that right?
Victimised?
People remanded in custody for the minimum time to prevent further trouble.
I don’t have much of a problem with that at all.
I think the previous 2 commenters need to calm down.
I wish Germany ran the UK… They went FROM being a Nazi country with no rights but the UK is heading to become a Nazi country without rights.
Two words: Police state.