5 ms·

During the royal wedding, the Police arrested republican protestors in central London, moved them out to the edges of London (Cheam, in one example) and then re

During the royal wedding, the Police arrested republican protestors in central London, moved them out to the edges of London (Cheam, in one example) and then released them, dropping their grounds for arrest[1]. There is no freedom of speech or expression here, when it's a cause the police don't like. The fact that they are now also revealed to decide which political activists are "domestic terrorists," and include them in terrorism statistics, is preposterous. [1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/28/royal-wedding-protesters-high-court http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/28/royal-wedding-prote...

colin_jack 13y ago
Worst thing is that there is so little discussion/coverage of this in the UK. Other than the Guardian the G20, GCHQ, NSA findings have hardly been covered. I'm most surprised by the BBC, even if they did get a DA-notice I would have expected them to be somewhat impartial.
- jumblesale 13y ago
  It's staggering that there's no discussion on this. I remember seeing the newspapers on the day Snowden broke the stuff about GCHQ. The Grauniad was indignant; nobody else even touched the story. Why aren't the government being hauled over the coals for this thing? Cameron's promising an enquiry over the Lawson investigation but his government is still pushing ever broader collection of digital communications. It makes me feel angry and powerless.
  - illumen 13y ago
    The government already locked up one editor, and a bunch of journalists, and also closed a newspaper down. They are scared.
    - cones688 13y ago
      To reply to your tweet about this..... "UK government puts editor in jail for one of employees spying on a few dozen people. What punishment do they get for spying on a billion?" The Government are working within the law... the press was not. Also all to combined government computing power in the UK couldn't analyse the amount of data the government would have to work through if it "spied" and analysed everything that went across any network. Classic case of "big data" analysis - parse all the data in motion, pull off the things of interest, discard the rest.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    > nobody else even touched the story. This is EDIT not correct. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b02xxvbr http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b02xxvbr) 0833 Sir Malcom Rifkind, a former foreign secretary and the current chairman of the commons intelligence and security committee, and Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, analyse allegations that GCHQ has snooped on web information. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23059065)(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23053691) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23059065)(http://www.b... (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23004080 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23004080) (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23048259 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23048259) (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23017108 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23017108) (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23051248 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23051248) etc etc etc. > Why aren't the government being hauled over the coals for this thing? There's no evidence that GCHQ are doing anything illegal, nor anything new. They've been doing this for many years. It's what they say they do. It's what they're set up to do. GCHQ having a 3 day cache of communication-content data is little different to telecoms companies keeping a similar cache[1] except the laws are clearer about what GCHQ can and can't do with the data. In terms of privacy violation there are much worse examples than GCHQ slurping everything. Corrupt public officials (eg: police officers) selling off information to newspapers; workers for telecoms companies having unauthorised access; people with access to medical records gossiping. Note that the broader collection you mention is, at the moment, just "meta data" (routing information), and not content data. I guess while not be acceptable it is less unacceptable than collecting content data. (If that makes sense.)
    - jumblesale 13y ago
      I don't remember but did the BBC run the story on TV? I don't remember it being discussed but I might not have seen the news that day. My point was that none of the other papers picked this up. There's been a lot of talk online but I don't think that's where the majority of people get their news from.
      - ollysb 13y ago
        My parents watch the BBC news religiously, I asked them if they'd heard anything about the NSA story a couple of days after the story broke and they were completely unaware. When I brought their attention to some of the articles online their reaction was outrage. I wonder what the national reaction would have been had the coverage been more thorough. I find it difficult to believe there aren't plenty of journalists out there wishing they could get their teeth into a meaty story like this one, what's holding them back?
- ollysb 13y ago
  The BBC may be impartial when it covers a story, unfortunately it's criteria for selecting what to report seems less and less impartial...
aj700 13y ago
The police have ALWAYS been given the tools to do this kind of thing by the courts and parliament. (in all of Europe, at least.) There are loads of offences still on the books that could mean almost anything, but which can be used as grounds for arrest. The police have ALWAYS used their 48 hours of custody to remove certain troublemakers from certain areas under every type of government. Taking away your ability to shout in the streets for 48 hours is not MUCH of a restriction on freedom of speech. Get a blog and millions can read it, but nobody will. Most people don't have time for politics, and the majority won't until resources are no longer scarce. People, if you support Pres. Obama you have to go along with statism because he is one. Supporting him because he is the "least worst" even though you hate any statism is stupid. If you don't like a big government, support someone else.
- tehwalrus 13y ago
  being a UK citizen (sorry, subject), my opinion on Obama is largely immaterial, but since you asked: I broadly agree with much of Obama's rhetoric, and I imagine much of his policy (although I'm not clued up on the details, what with them hardly affecting me.) I do disagree with him/his government on a number of issues though, including the International Law around his use of Drones, the fact that Guantanamo Bay has not been packed up and the people detained there tried for offenses or released, and on his surveillance and national security policy. Insisting that people either support or oppose a politician 100% is ridiculous. Politics has hundreds of variables; you can't insist on a 100% match before you'll "support," or even "vote for," or even "campaign for" someone - or else the US would have 300,000,000 politicians all voting only for themselves.
  - akama 13y ago
    Just so you know, Obama believes that Guantanamo Bay should be closed. The reason it is not closed is because he is unable to get the funding from congress to close it.
    - lifeisstillgood 13y ago
      One needs money to stop doing something? I suspect the reasons for not closing Gitmo are less clean and clear than "they won't let me boo-hoo" Start with a thousand wrongful arrest and torture suits filed against everyone at all positions of government for ten years, and work down.
cones688 13y ago
"In the months leading up to the wedding, a series of demonstrations by students, trade unionists and others saw hundreds of thousands of people take to the streets to protest against government cuts. There were outbreaks of disorder and in one case student demonstrators attacked a car carrying Prince Charles and his wife Camilla." [1] I might just be being cynical but this sounds like an intelligence led operation to remove people who were at a high risk of commiting public disorder. It seems pretty limited that it was 20 people and they were picked up all across london - the police didn't just swoop in on a group of protesters with anti-monarchy banners, they were specifically targeted. I appreciate although the UK has no "constitution" we have to free protest but from the riots last year I think The Met have every right to be cautious about preventing demonstrations which could spark into something dangerous at one of the biggest public spectacles of the decade, when the entire crowd is made up of families trying to enjoy themselves. If the cause is so noble, one shouldn't need to use a large public spectacle as a vehicle for it. [1]http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/27/activists-arrested-c/hallenge-police-high-court http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/27/activists-arrested-...
- tehwalrus 13y ago
  That's little comfort: I still get the impression that if I'd been standing next to them I would have been arrested too. Freedom of expression means being allowed to make a spectacle. Not by attacking Charles & Camilla, but marching up and down shouting in the daytime, sure.
- gadders 13y ago
  Too true. We already had the left's equivalent of the Westborough Baptist Church trying to wreck Margaret Thatcher's funeral.
- casiotone 13y ago
  > I might just be being cynical but this sounds like an intelligence led operation to remove people who were at a high risk of commiting public disorder. You are being cynical. You cannot be preemptively arrested for having a "high risk of committing public disorder", which is what happened. Many people, who actually had no plans to demonstrate or do anything other than spend the day drinking and trying not to watch the ceremony, were subjected to dawn raids for no reason other than that they are on police watchlists (along with thousands and thousands of other peaceful protestors) It's so incredibly easy to get on a police watchlist now - you merely have to turn up to a protest to get yourself on file. Pensioners have had files for merely walking along a protest route and then going home.

colin_jack 13y ago

Worst thing is that there is so little discussion/coverage of this in the UK. Other than the Guardian the G20, GCHQ, NSA findings have hardly been covered. I'm most surprised by the BBC, even if they did get a DA-notice I would have expected them to be somewhat impartial.

jumblesale 13y ago
It's staggering that there's no discussion on this. I remember seeing the newspapers on the day Snowden broke the stuff about GCHQ. The Grauniad was indignant; nobody else even touched the story. Why aren't the government being hauled over the coals for this thing? Cameron's promising an enquiry over the Lawson investigation but his government is still pushing ever broader collection of digital communications. It makes me feel angry and powerless.
- illumen 13y ago
  The government already locked up one editor, and a bunch of journalists, and also closed a newspaper down. They are scared.
  - cones688 13y ago
    To reply to your tweet about this..... "UK government puts editor in jail for one of employees spying on a few dozen people. What punishment do they get for spying on a billion?" The Government are working within the law... the press was not. Also all to combined government computing power in the UK couldn't analyse the amount of data the government would have to work through if it "spied" and analysed everything that went across any network. Classic case of "big data" analysis - parse all the data in motion, pull off the things of interest, discard the rest.
- DanBC 13y ago
  > nobody else even touched the story. This is EDIT not correct. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b02xxvbr http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b02xxvbr) 0833 Sir Malcom Rifkind, a former foreign secretary and the current chairman of the commons intelligence and security committee, and Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, analyse allegations that GCHQ has snooped on web information. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23059065)(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23053691) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23059065)(http://www.b... (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23004080 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23004080) (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23048259 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23048259) (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23017108 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23017108) (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23051248 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23051248) etc etc etc. > Why aren't the government being hauled over the coals for this thing? There's no evidence that GCHQ are doing anything illegal, nor anything new. They've been doing this for many years. It's what they say they do. It's what they're set up to do. GCHQ having a 3 day cache of communication-content data is little different to telecoms companies keeping a similar cache[1] except the laws are clearer about what GCHQ can and can't do with the data. In terms of privacy violation there are much worse examples than GCHQ slurping everything. Corrupt public officials (eg: police officers) selling off information to newspapers; workers for telecoms companies having unauthorised access; people with access to medical records gossiping. Note that the broader collection you mention is, at the moment, just "meta data" (routing information), and not content data. I guess while not be acceptable it is less unacceptable than collecting content data. (If that makes sense.)
  - jumblesale 13y ago
    I don't remember but did the BBC run the story on TV? I don't remember it being discussed but I might not have seen the news that day. My point was that none of the other papers picked this up. There's been a lot of talk online but I don't think that's where the majority of people get their news from.
    - ollysb 13y ago
      My parents watch the BBC news religiously, I asked them if they'd heard anything about the NSA story a couple of days after the story broke and they were completely unaware. When I brought their attention to some of the articles online their reaction was outrage. I wonder what the national reaction would have been had the coverage been more thorough. I find it difficult to believe there aren't plenty of journalists out there wishing they could get their teeth into a meaty story like this one, what's holding them back?
ollysb 13y ago
The BBC may be impartial when it covers a story, unfortunately it's criteria for selecting what to report seems less and less impartial...

aj700 13y ago

The police have ALWAYS been given the tools to do this kind of thing by the courts and parliament. (in all of Europe, at least.) There are loads of offences still on the books that could mean almost anything, but which can be used as grounds for arrest. The police have ALWAYS used their 48 hours of custody to remove certain troublemakers from certain areas under every type of government. Taking away your ability to shout in the streets for 48 hours is not MUCH of a restriction on freedom of speech. Get a blog and millions can read it, but nobody will. Most people don't have time for politics, and the majority won't until resources are no longer scarce. People, if you support Pres. Obama you have to go along with statism because he is one. Supporting him because he is the "least worst" even though you hate any statism is stupid. If you don't like a big government, support someone else.

tehwalrus 13y ago
being a UK citizen (sorry, subject), my opinion on Obama is largely immaterial, but since you asked: I broadly agree with much of Obama's rhetoric, and I imagine much of his policy (although I'm not clued up on the details, what with them hardly affecting me.) I do disagree with him/his government on a number of issues though, including the International Law around his use of Drones, the fact that Guantanamo Bay has not been packed up and the people detained there tried for offenses or released, and on his surveillance and national security policy. Insisting that people either support or oppose a politician 100% is ridiculous. Politics has hundreds of variables; you can't insist on a 100% match before you'll "support," or even "vote for," or even "campaign for" someone - or else the US would have 300,000,000 politicians all voting only for themselves.
- akama 13y ago
  Just so you know, Obama believes that Guantanamo Bay should be closed. The reason it is not closed is because he is unable to get the funding from congress to close it.
  - lifeisstillgood 13y ago
    One needs money to stop doing something? I suspect the reasons for not closing Gitmo are less clean and clear than "they won't let me boo-hoo" Start with a thousand wrongful arrest and torture suits filed against everyone at all positions of government for ten years, and work down.

cones688 13y ago

"In the months leading up to the wedding, a series of demonstrations by students, trade unionists and others saw hundreds of thousands of people take to the streets to protest against government cuts. There were outbreaks of disorder and in one case student demonstrators attacked a car carrying Prince Charles and his wife Camilla." [1] I might just be being cynical but this sounds like an intelligence led operation to remove people who were at a high risk of commiting public disorder. It seems pretty limited that it was 20 people and they were picked up all across london - the police didn't just swoop in on a group of protesters with anti-monarchy banners, they were specifically targeted. I appreciate although the UK has no "constitution" we have to free protest but from the riots last year I think The Met have every right to be cautious about preventing demonstrations which could spark into something dangerous at one of the biggest public spectacles of the decade, when the entire crowd is made up of families trying to enjoy themselves. If the cause is so noble, one shouldn't need to use a large public spectacle as a vehicle for it. [1]http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/27/activists-arrested-c/hallenge-police-high-court http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/27/activists-arrested-...

tehwalrus 13y ago
That's little comfort: I still get the impression that if I'd been standing next to them I would have been arrested too. Freedom of expression means being allowed to make a spectacle. Not by attacking Charles & Camilla, but marching up and down shouting in the daytime, sure.
gadders 13y ago
Too true. We already had the left's equivalent of the Westborough Baptist Church trying to wreck Margaret Thatcher's funeral.
casiotone 13y ago
> I might just be being cynical but this sounds like an intelligence led operation to remove people who were at a high risk of commiting public disorder. You are being cynical. You cannot be preemptively arrested for having a "high risk of committing public disorder", which is what happened. Many people, who actually had no plans to demonstrate or do anything other than spend the day drinking and trying not to watch the ceremony, were subjected to dawn raids for no reason other than that they are on police watchlists (along with thousands and thousands of other peaceful protestors) It's so incredibly easy to get on a police watchlist now - you merely have to turn up to a protest to get yourself on file. Pensioners have had files for merely walking along a protest route and then going home.