By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
On the face of it that's appalling, particularly the bits at 1:50 and 3:30 and 4:00, but I also recognise that it must be difficult for the individual coppers to interpret.
Armed police threatened a peaceful protester with arrest under the Terrorism Act for holding a Palestinian flag and having signs saying “Free Gaza” and “Israel is committing genocide”, accusing her of supporting a proscribed organisation.
Officers told Laura Murton, 42, that her demonstration in Canterbury, Kent, on Monday evening expressed views supportive of Palestine Action, which was banned under terrorism legislation earlier this month.
Murton said neither of her signs mentioned Palestine Action. When asked directly whether she supported any proscribed organisations, she replied: “I do not.”
In the encounter, which she filmed, one officer told her: “Mentioning freedom of Gaza, Israel, genocide, all of that all come under proscribed groups, which are terror groups that have been dictated by the government".
He went on to say that the phrase “Free Gaza” is “supportive of Palestine Action”, adding it was an offence “to express an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation, namely Palestine Action is an offence under section 12(1A) of the Terrorism Act”. The officer told her she had committed that offence.
The officers said they would arrest Murton unless she provided her name and address, which she reluctantly agreed to do.
A Kent police spokesperson said: “Under the Terrorism Act it is a criminal offence to carry or display items that may arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation such as Palestine Action.”
[Post edited 17 Jul 8:12]
0
State over reach....terrorist supporters everywhere. on 08:12 - Jul 17 with 1454 views
Armed police threatened a peaceful protester with arrest under the Terrorism Act for holding a Palestinian flag and having signs saying “Free Gaza” and “Israel is committing genocide”, accusing her of supporting a proscribed organisation.
Officers told Laura Murton, 42, that her demonstration in Canterbury, Kent, on Monday evening expressed views supportive of Palestine Action, which was banned under terrorism legislation earlier this month.
Murton said neither of her signs mentioned Palestine Action. When asked directly whether she supported any proscribed organisations, she replied: “I do not.”
In the encounter, which she filmed, one officer told her: “Mentioning freedom of Gaza, Israel, genocide, all of that all come under proscribed groups, which are terror groups that have been dictated by the government".
He went on to say that the phrase “Free Gaza” is “supportive of Palestine Action”, adding it was an offence “to express an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation, namely Palestine Action is an offence under section 12(1A) of the Terrorism Act”. The officer told her she had committed that offence.
The officers said they would arrest Murton unless she provided her name and address, which she reluctantly agreed to do.
A Kent police spokesperson said: “Under the Terrorism Act it is a criminal offence to carry or display items that may arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation such as Palestine Action.”
[Post edited 17 Jul 8:12]
That line from the Kent police force is ridiculous, having a Palestinian flag and a fairly standard "stop genocide" placard is in no way a reasonable suspicion that they are a member or supporter Palestine Action.
State over reach....terrorist supporters everywhere. on 08:12 - Jul 17 by DanTheMan
That line from the Kent police force is ridiculous, having a Palestinian flag and a fairly standard "stop genocide" placard is in no way a reasonable suspicion that they are a member or supporter Palestine Action.
Absolutely, and the fact that it was made after the incident makes it even worse.
It follows on from this, and appears to involve an attempt to prevent peaceful protest.
State over reach....terrorist supporters everywhere. on 08:20 - Jul 17 by DJR
The lawmakers have been useless but this appears to be down to the coppers, or at least what they have been instructed to do.
Can remember getting stopped for a traffic offence in the early 2000s and the copper absent-mindedly telling me my car's number plater was "flagged" on their system after attending an anti-war demo.
Think small town/rural police can be prone to small 'c' conservatism where they see this stuff as a big city thing that has no place in their towns.
It's also deliberate mission creep. Most national politicians and media actually do think pro-Palestine activism is basically all bad and borderline should be illegal. Anyone remember the freakouts they had about the big Saturday demos in London last year? Think the lawmakers are perfectly happy to provide an excuse for this sort of low-level political harassment (note also that the Kent Constabulary doubled down when the press called).
State over reach....terrorist supporters everywhere. on 10:28 - Jul 17 by blueasfook
There are organised marches for Palestine protests. People can't just pop up wherever they like and disrupt the public going about their business.
That seems to me to be an extraordinary view to have.
An individual protesting on their own, wherever they like within reason, is surely a fundamental British right.
As it is, it was not obvious to me she was doing any harm, but if she were endangering the traffic, the police should have just stuck to that as the grounds for moving her on. They only gave that reason as an after thought, and they followed up by saying if she moved to the centre of Canterbury where there is no traffic she would be arrested under the Terrorism Act.
[Post edited 17 Jul 10:49]
3
State over reach....terrorist supporters everywhere. on 10:49 - Jul 17 with 961 views
State over reach....terrorist supporters everywhere. on 08:12 - Jul 17 by DanTheMan
That line from the Kent police force is ridiculous, having a Palestinian flag and a fairly standard "stop genocide" placard is in no way a reasonable suspicion that they are a member or supporter Palestine Action.
It's absolutely disgraceful that Palestine Action are a proscribed organisation, and this incident demonstrates exactly why they have been; to muddy the waters, confuse the Police and make it far more likely that you'll be arrested just for supporting the Palestinian cause. It's state intimidation of peaceful protest, under a so called Labour government.
4
State over reach....terrorist supporters everywhere. on 10:50 - Jul 17 with 957 views
Shocking. What were their "reasonable grounds for suspicion" that a crime was, or was about to be, committed? Does this set a precedent that peaceful protest, against Israel's actions in Gaza, is now illegal?
State over reach....terrorist supporters everywhere. on 10:50 - Jul 17 by NthQldITFC
I wasn't sure, but I thought I heard or read 'she' somewhere, but that doesn't make any difference at all really.
Your first reply suggested that you thought it ought not to be allowed to protest about the 'events' in Palestine unless at an organised rally.
This one comes across more as favouring helping to finding him/her a better place to have more of an effect for his/her protest.
I'm all for that!
People in the free world absolutely have the right to protest yes. But this particular act strikes me somewhat as a stunt, knowing it would provoke a police reaction - and the "protestor" could get some airtime for it.
"Blueas is a great guy, one of the best." - Donald Trump
State over reach....terrorist supporters everywhere. on 10:58 - Jul 17 by blueasfook
People in the free world absolutely have the right to protest yes. But this particular act strikes me somewhat as a stunt, knowing it would provoke a police reaction - and the "protestor" could get some airtime for it.
Not much point in protesting if you don't get noticed. Might as well just do it at home if you don't think it should provoke a reaction or inconvenience someone.
They took a knee-jerk decision under pressure from various lobbies without really thinking it through. A lot of police outside of London won't have been briefed or trained on the differences in protests on this matter and thus are making some pretty awful decisions.
A mess entirely of the governments own making and it's likely to continue given that absurd statement from Kent police.
SB
3
State over reach....terrorist supporters everywhere. on 11:26 - Jul 17 with 774 views
State over reach....terrorist supporters everywhere. on 10:58 - Jul 17 by blueasfook
People in the free world absolutely have the right to protest yes. But this particular act strikes me somewhat as a stunt, knowing it would provoke a police reaction - and the "protestor" could get some airtime for it.
I don't regard it as a stunt given she couldn't have imagined the police would act as they did and exceed their powers.
2
State over reach....terrorist supporters everywhere. on 11:30 - Jul 17 with 766 views
State over reach....terrorist supporters everywhere. on 10:58 - Jul 17 by blueasfook
People in the free world absolutely have the right to protest yes. But this particular act strikes me somewhat as a stunt, knowing it would provoke a police reaction - and the "protestor" could get some airtime for it.
Why should it provoke a police action?
The issue here is that it was legal and shouldn't have provoked a police action. The police are entirely in the wrong.
SB
2
State over reach....terrorist supporters everywhere. on 11:38 - Jul 17 with 721 views
State over reach....terrorist supporters everywhere. on 10:37 - Jul 17 by DJR
That seems to me to be an extraordinary view to have.
An individual protesting on their own, wherever they like within reason, is surely a fundamental British right.
As it is, it was not obvious to me she was doing any harm, but if she were endangering the traffic, the police should have just stuck to that as the grounds for moving her on. They only gave that reason as an after thought, and they followed up by saying if she moved to the centre of Canterbury where there is no traffic she would be arrested under the Terrorism Act.
[Post edited 17 Jul 10:49]
Just ignore her/him/them, elite level attention seeking as ever.
"They break our legs and tell us to be grateful when they offer us crutches."
O: (The senior police officer’s voice has a cutting edge.) Come in, shut the door. Now then, Savage, I want to talk to you about some charges that you have been bringing in lately. I think that perhaps you’re being a little overzealous [[a little too keen]].
S: (in a slow and somewhat stupid voice) Which charges do you mean then, sir?
O: Well, for instance, this one: loitering with intent to use a pedestrian crossing. Savage, maybe you’re not aware of this, but it is not illegal to use a pedestrian crossing. Neither is smelling of foreign food an offence.
S: You’re sure, sir?
O: Also there is no law against urinating in a public convenience [[public toilet]] or coughing without due care and attention [[without proper care]].
S: If you say so, sir.
O: Yes, I do say so, Savage! Didn’t they teach you anything at training school?
S: I’m sorry, sir.
O: Some of these cases are plain stupid: looking at me in a funny way … Is this some kind of joke, Savage?
S: No, sir.
O: And we have some more here: walking on the cracks in the pavement *), walking in a loud shirt in a built-up area during the hours of darkness and walking around with an offensive wife. In short, Savage, in the space of one month you’ve brought 117 ridiculous, trumped-up and ludicrous charges.
S: Yes, sir.
O: Against the same man, Savage.
S: Yes, sir.
O: A Mr Winston Cudoogo of 55 Mercer Road [[Spencer Street]].
S: Yes, sir.
O: (to Savage, who’s been standing so far) Sit down, Savage!
S: Yes, sir.
O: Savage, why do you keep arresting this man?
S: He’s a villain, sir.
O: A villain …
S: And a jailbird.
O: (exploding) I know he’s a jailbird, Savage. He’s down in the cells now. We are holding him on a charge of possession of curly black hair and thick lips.
S: Well, … well, well, well there you are, sir.
O: You arrested him, Savage!
S: (stupidly pleased) Thank you, sir.
O: Savage, would I be correct in assuming that Mr Cudoogo is a coloured gentleman?
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
