Evonne Powell-Von Heussen spent five years campaigning for a Protection from Harassment Act which finally went onto the Statute Books in 1997. I have used section two of this Act in letters on behalf of fairly desperate people who were being telephoned repeatedly up to six times a day by Banks and credit card companies, I am pleased to say it has the desired effect.
However the goons that have taken over the Government of this country, seem to think that this piece of legistlation was such a good idea that it was used against protesters at Menwith Hill in 2001 for Harassing US servicemen by holding up a placard with ‘George Bush Oh Dear’ on it.
In the same year a
protester in Hull was arrested under the act for “staring at a building”. In 2004, police in Kent arrested a woman who had sent two polite emails to an executive at a drugs company, begging him not to test his products on animals. In 2007, the residents of a village in Oxfordshire were injuncted from protesting against a power company’s plan to fill their lake with fly ash – in case they caused alarm or distress to the company’s burly security guards.
Having discovered what a useful tool it had become, in 2005 the government amended the act in a way that seemed deliberately to target peaceful protesters and smear them as stalkers. Originally you had to approach one person twice to be “pursuing a course of conduct”; now you need only approach two people once. In other words, if you hand out leaflets to passers-by which contain news that might alarm or distress them, that is now harassment.
The government slipped in a further clause, redefining harassment as representing to “another individual” (ie anyone) “in the vicinity” of his or anyone else’s home (ie anywhere) “that he should not do something that he is entitled or required to do; or that he should do something that he is not under any obligation to do”. This is, of course, the purpose of protest. These amendments, in other words, allow the police to ban any campaign they please. Surreptitiously inserted into the vast and sprawling 2005 Serious Organised Crime and Police Act, they were undebated in either chamber of parliament.
George Monbiot- The Guardian
I would any of you reading this to get, buy or rent a copy of ‘Taking Liberties’
This film was something that made me finally get off my arse and start getting involved before it is too late, since this film was made it can easily be extended by a further hour, with all of the restictions and repression brought in in the last eighteen months by Brown. Taking a photograph of the Police is now going to be a criminal offence, all of these restrictions are determined to stifle protest and dissent, because the Righteous are fearful.
The bastards would I am sure suspend the Constitution if we had one when the time came for a general election. If you think I am joking they have already passed the Law to do it. The Civil Contingencies Act 2004
Let me run you through some of the juicier parts
(1) In this Part “emergency” means—
(a) an event or situation which threatens serious damage to human welfare in a place in the United Kingdom,
(b) an event or situation which threatens serious damage to the environment of a place in the United Kingdom, or
(c) war, or terrorism, which threatens serious damage to the security of the United Kingdom.
So basically 1a is a catchall, the Government can declare a state of emergency over anything, civil unrest, opposition to their rule anything….
Section 20
Power to make emergency regulations
(1) Her Majesty may by Order in Council make emergency regulations if satisfied that the conditions in section 21 are satisfied.
(2) A senior Minister of the Crown may make emergency regulations if satisfied—
(a) that the conditions in section 21 are satisfied, and
(b) that it would not be possible, without serious delay, to arrange for an Order in Council under subsection (1).
(3) In this Part “senior Minister of the Crown” means—
(a) the First Lord of the Treasury (the Prime Minister),
(b) any of Her Majesty’s Principal Secretaries of State, and
(c) the Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury.
Basically Gordon, Jack Straw and Jacqui Smith will make the Law
What happens if you oppose the Government as at Ackton Hall Colliery in 1893 ?
With the above doctrines of English law the Riot Act does not interfere. Its effect is only to make the failure of a crowd to disperse for a whole hour after the proclamation has been read a felony; and on this ground to afford a statutory justification for dispersing a felonious assemblage, even at the risk of taking life. In the case of the Ackton Hall Colliery, an hour had not elapsed after what is popularly called the reading of the Riot Act, before the military fired. No justification for their firing can therefore be rested on the provisions of the Riot Act itself, the further consideration of which may indeed be here dismissed from the case. But the fact that an hour had not expired since its reading did not incapacitate the troops from acting when outrage had to be prevented. All their common law duty as citizens and soldiers remained in full force. The justification of Captain Barker and his men must stand or fall entirely by the common law. Was what they did necessary, and no more than was necessary, to put a stop to or prevent felonious crime? In doing it, did they exercise all ordinary skill and caution, so as to do no more harm than could be reasonably avoided?
If these two conditions are made out, the fact that innocent people have suffered does not involve the troops in legal responsibility. A guilty ringleader who under such conditions is shot dead, dies by justifiable homicide. An innocent person killed under such conditions, where no negligence has occurred, dies by an accidental death. The legal reason is not that the innocent person has to thank himself for what has happened, for it is conceivable (though not often likely) that he may have been unconscious of any danger and innocent of all imprudence. The reason is that the soldier who fired has done nothing except what was his strict legal duty.
Basically the State will lawfully shoot you, as it did Jean-Charles De Menezes
Martial Law can only be declared in time of war and extra-legal powers invoked by a magistrate or a Mayor can only be invoked to restore order, once order has been restored the status quo ante prevails in that the Courts will exercise the Authority placed in them by Parliament.
Explain to me why in the abscence of war and abscence of civil insurrection why has the State under Labour taking all of these powers to itself.
Resist it is your duty