Freedom of Speech and Liberty?

bonk man

A citizen of this country is being prosecuted for terrorism..... nothing new there, but his terrorism has been protesting peacefully about something he feels strongly about, no violence has taken place or claimed, the demonstration has been vocal and involved leafleting and protesting outside companies involved in a business he objects to.

The judge in the case has stated that this person will get 4 years in prison if found guilty..
The case has cost millions..
Armed police are guarding the jurors..
A ban on the reporting of the case is in place..
etc etc..

SO if this man warrants all this, for leafleting and slightly disrupting a business or two what can we expect if we do a critical mass or protest against a local development or a business we dont like?

Oh yeh , this bloke even though there are all the armed cops and he is declared a terrorist is out on bail.. What a joke..
Rant over.

eternal_headwind

do you have more specific details

who is this man?
what was he protesting about?
where is he on trial?

bonk man

I don't really want to say what he is involved with....

The point I was making was more about the right to peaceful protest and the use of draconian laws to stop peaceful protest.
There are new laws available to the powers that be that are being used to stop protest that may or may not harm a business. The problem is they could be used against more or less any demonstration if the authorities want to implement them in such a way.

I can say that the protest is one of the usual ones that go on in this country, so you could chose between war, hunting, vivisection, developers, transport.....etc
The case is at Oxford.
He is a mate of mine, but that is not why I am moaning on about the trial, it is more that I occasionally get involved in protests and don't want to get locked up for some new stupid laws...

redddraggon

bonk man wrote:

I don't really want to say what he is involved with....

Why not?

What's the point of giving us so little information?

Mithras

Reading between the lines, this person is possibly an Animal Rights Activist and is involved in targeting companies and people connected, no matter how tenuous, with Huntingdon Life Sciences.

So thinking about that, he is probably a member of ALF or SHAC.

Personally I have no problem with people protesting peacefully, however knowing the law and why the laws have been changed in this country, I do not believe for one second that he is being charged with terrorism for sending a few innocent leaflets.


PS Talking about your friends case in Public, could seriously damage his defence.....Don't do it.

bonk man

Firstly what he is involved with is not the issue, the issue is freedom to express your concerns and make a protest in this country. I have been on demos with him and others and I have seen nothing that is unreasonable, people are given the facts and the choice is theirs as to how they interpret them.
I would not involve myself in intimidation, whether some one might think my actions or the actions of another is intimidation is a matter of interpretation. But do you think handing out leaflets with some facts printed on them is intimidation?

If some one believes that I might set fire to their house because they carry on with something I feel is unacceptable does this mean I should not tell them I feel their actions are unacceptable? Does this mean I should be arrested and banged up for 4 years?

Most people involved in protest organisations these days are very cautious about what they might say or do but unfortunately you only have to look at some one in a "threatening" manner or suggest to some one that they should think about what they are doing and you can land yourself in trouble.

Most protesters are considered to be a pain in the neck but mostly to be harmless by the powers that be, but it seems more and more that we cannot do more than wave a moderately worded placard for a few moments in a public place. If I were to visit say a local supplier of stationary to a local arms company and give them leaflets with pictures of blown up people and say this is what the arms company is involved with then I am open to being done for it, so if in 1941 you were the boss of a chemical factory in Germany and some one came to you with information that your chemicals were being used for poison gas would you be glad you were told? At least you would have the information to make your choices, there is no difference here and now, whether or not you might think the manufacture of bombs or testing of fertiliser on rabbits is ok the thing is you now know that you are involved in it.

We all turn a blind eye to stuff and it can cost us dear but so can making a noise about it. I know that this person has not physically damaged anyone and as far as I know anything, so how can he be sent to prison for 4 years when you might get less for killing some one with a car or getting drunk and beating some one senseless?

Brains

And two other recent cases:

The 'Lyrical terrorist' who committed thought crime and wrote poetry. Banged up for about 6 months on remand and then was sentenced to 18 months but let off on the condition she does not write any more poetry or think terrorist thoughts.

The other one was on his way out of the UK, having committed no crime, but again thought about terrorism, and may well have been on his way to Afghanistan to fight against the invaders there. 3 years on remand and sentenced to 4 years including time already served.

So do we have freedom of speech or thought in this country.

No.

Back in a min, someone knocking at the door .........

Gavin Gilbert

bonk man wrote:

A citizen of this country is being prosecuted for terrorism..... nothing new there, but his terrorism has been protesting peacefully about something he feels strongly about, no violence has taken place or claimed, the demonstration has been vocal and involved leafleting and protesting outside companies involved in a business he objects to.

The judge in the case has stated that this person will get 4 years in prison if found guilty..
The case has cost millions..
Armed police are guarding the jurors..
A ban on the reporting of the case is in place..
etc etc..

SO if this man warrants all this, for leafleting and slightly disrupting a business or two what can we expect if we do a critical mass or protest against a local development or a business we dont like?

Oh yeh , this bloke even though there are all the armed cops and he is declared a terrorist is out on bail.. What a joke..
Rant over.

Having work for one of the companies being targeted (for being HLS insurance broker fer Gawds sake) I think four years is reasonable. Being subject to medical experiments who however be more apt.

ddraver

My mother got targeted by SHAC for working for a pharmacutical company who tested at HLS, her manager had his house broken into on christmas eve (a few years back now), all the presents for his young kids destroyed, all the food for the next day ruined and red paint daubed all over the walls in words like puppy killer and Nazi

if he is an animal rights activist I have very little sympathy

my mother was fortunate enough to only have some sex gear catalogues sent and some notes saying she was a puppy killer etc

....just.....grow up.....(not you OP, the organisations)

if he is not an animal rights activist then ignore the above

wallabyhunter

Back in a min, someone knocking at the door .........

I like that one!
gb

pneumatic

I remember hearing a very inspiring talk once by a man (whose name I now forget) who had spent most of his career as a UN peacekeeper, negotiator, troubleshooter etc..

One of the things that he said that stuck with me was this:

"It is hard not to fall into the trap of being just as bad as the thing you hate."

This often happens to indignant people (including me). You end up behaving in a way that mirrors the behaviour you are indignant about. Apparently the trick is to exercise what is known these days as emotional intelligence; not being unmoved by the situation but riding the emotion rather than being engulfed by it.

If you find violence (either physical or verbal or psychological) towards other creatures distasteful, what is the point in responding with violence (either physical or verbal or psychological)?

Easy to say, hard to live!

Mithras

bonk man wrote:

1.I would not involve myself in intimidation, whether some one might think my actions or the actions of another is intimidation is a matter of interpretation. But do you think handing out leaflets with some facts printed on them is intimidation?

2.If some one believes that I might set fire to their house because they carry on with something I feel is unacceptable does this mean I should not tell them I feel their actions are unacceptable? Does this mean I should be arrested and banged up for 4 years?


3.If I were to visit say a local supplier of stationary to a local arms company and give them leaflets with pictures of blown up people and say this is what the arms company is involved with then I am open to being done for it,

4.I know that this person has not physically damaged anyone and as far as I know anything, so how can he be sent to prison for 4 years when you might get less for killing some one with a car or getting drunk and beating some one senseless?

A1.No you are correct, handing out leaflets with facts printed on them is not intimidation. However targetting an individual or company and continually bombarding them with leaflets etc. is harrasment and if it is in conjunction with a group or cause who are known to use intimidating tactics then yes if the individual person or company percieves that action to be intimidation then it is.
Definition of the word INTIMIDATE:
1. To make timid; fill with fear.
2. To coerce or inhibit by or as if by threats.

2A There is nothing wrong with telling someon you, in your personal opinoin believe that there actions are inappropriate, however if you know or believe that they think you or a group of people you may be associated with will set fire to thier property, is it correct for you to continue the course of action you have embarked upon. You've told them once surely that is enough?

3A Sending pictures of blown up people. Bang out of order. You do not know who will open that mail. The psycological damage caused by that should get you arrested under the The Public Order Act 1986 s.4A states:

1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person intentional harassment, alarm or distress he-
a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

The Key words here are INTENTIONAL, DISTRESS

4A Good Point.....Sentencing in these cases are not harsh enough. However for what you are talking about and I think 4 years is a maximum (so 4 months is more likely if a custodial sentence comes around at all (ta very much Criminal Protection Service)) is about fair!

spen666

Mithras wrote:

bonk man wrote:

1.I would not involve myself in intimidation, whether some one might think my actions or the actions of another is intimidation is a matter of interpretation. But do you think handing out leaflets with some facts printed on them is intimidation?

2.If some one believes that I might set fire to their house because they carry on with something I feel is unacceptable does this mean I should not tell them I feel their actions are unacceptable? Does this mean I should be arrested and banged up for 4 years?


3.If I were to visit say a local supplier of stationary to a local arms company and give them leaflets with pictures of blown up people and say this is what the arms company is involved with then I am open to being done for it,

4.I know that this person has not physically damaged anyone and as far as I know anything, so how can he be sent to prison for 4 years when you might get less for killing some one with a car or getting drunk and beating some one senseless?

A1.No you are correct, handing out leaflets with facts printed on them is not intimidation. However targetting an individual or company and continually bombarding them with leaflets etc. is harrasment and if it is in conjunction with a group or cause who are known to use intimidating tactics then yes if the individual person or company percieves that action to be intimidation then it is.
Definition of the word INTIMIDATE:
1. To make timid; fill with fear.
2. To coerce or inhibit by or as if by threats.

2A There is nothing wrong with telling someon you, in your personal opinoin believe that there actions are inappropriate, however if you know or believe that they think you or a group of people you may be associated with will set fire to thier property, is it correct for you to continue the course of action you have embarked upon. You've told them once surely that is enough?

3A Sending pictures of blown up people. Bang out of order. You do not know who will open that mail. The psycological damage caused by that should get you arrested under the The Public Order Act 1986 s.4A states:

1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person intentional harassment, alarm or distress he-
a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

The Key words here are INTENTIONAL, DISTRESS

4A Good Point.....Sentencing in these cases are not harsh enough. However for what you are talking about and I think 4 years is a maximum (so 4 months is more likely if a custodial sentence comes around at all (ta very much Criminal Protection Service)) is about fair!

In one sentence you have just undone any good work in your posting.

Why are you blaming the CPS for the sentence? As you know perfectly well officer, the CPS do NOT play any part in the sentencing of a suspect, other than out lining the facts of the case. It is not the USA system here where their prosecutors can recommend sentences to the court.

richardast

You have to take any discussion of this type on the internet with a lorryload of salt equally distributed between both sides.

I've been present at various demonstrations and incidents over the last few years and witnessed first hand what has happened.
I've then seen footage on TV, read reports in newspapers and on the net, looked at articles and photos on Indymedia and heard people talking about the incidents and have had to conclude that everyone present was either taking mind-altering drugs, lying to further their cause or just seeing what they wanted to see.

These days, if I haven't actually seen or heard something for myself I don't assume that it is completely true.

top_bhoy

Move along, nothing to see here!

I can't take the OP seriously. One persons intimidation is another persons protest so without a factual link or info as to what this 'friend' is involved in, its impossible to take any position as to whether its a justifiable case against him or not. The jury will be the final arbitor of this case.

Mithras

spen666 wrote:

Mithras wrote:

bonk man wrote:

4A Good Point.....Sentencing in these cases are not harsh enough. However for what you are talking about and I think 4 years is a maximum (so 4 months is more likely if a custodial sentence comes around at all (ta very much Criminal Protection Service)) is about fair!

In one sentence you have just undone any good work in your posting.

Why are you blaming the CPS for the sentence? As you know perfectly well officer, the CPS do NOT play any part in the sentencing of a suspect, other than out lining the facts of the case. It is not the USA system here where their prosecutors can recommend sentences to the court.

Spen, I appologise and you are infact correct.....view clouded by other unconnected incident. Once again I appologise!

Tourist Tony

The Lyrical Terrorits...
Did nothing except write a few poems....and send details of the security system at the airport where she worked airside to a committed terroroist.

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

Now now Tony, don't bore us with the details. :roll: