HA HA
Barbara Streisand strikes again ...
The British website briefly removed from the sight of some web surfers by the Met Police's e-crime unit is back in full effect. Of course Fitwatch never really disappeared; the site's hosting provider JustHost suspended the account after a stroppy email from the Met, but hardly had the plug been pulled than the site sprouted …
While walking home with my fiancée we passed a scuffle between some police and a few young men, one officer bumped into my fiancée and without turning around I simply said one word "careful"
A second police officer muttered something about "you be careful" which for some reason made me laugh, not at him mind I was several paces away and looking forward.
The next thing I knew I was handcuffed and thrown into the back of a van.
The police refused to tell me what crime I had committed even when I was summonsed to court.
There I was told by my solicitor that 3 police officers were prepared to swear under oath that I had abusively confrounted the officers uttered a tirade of insults and profanities, calling them all the names under the sun.
I was found guilty of being drunk and disorderly and fined.
This gave me, an innocent man, a criminal record.
So I also say "Fuck the police" "All of them"
I will never trust a single police officer again as long as I live.
Anonymous for obvious reasons.
Because the story is just not possible.
A. You had a witness, who one assumes wasn't arrested, so could actually refute the argument
B. You have to be charged to be summonsed to court, both of which require you to be informed of the charge.
C. If the police really did that then your Solicitor would be able to drive a coach and horses through the case, and you have an amazing case for compensation, contact the IPCC now.
or alternately.......
A, Are you really naive enough to think that the magistrates will take my fiancée's word over 3 police officers?
B, I was not informed of the charge, this is a fact. You assume these officers would suddenly start to obey the rules.
C, You have no idea how the IPCC works in Britain do you?
That last point answers your question as to where I live.
You assume I am lying, it must be easier for you to also accuse me of dishonesty that face up to what our "beloved" bobbies have become.
You are simply working on theory and perhaps good experiences of police. You cannot refute that this happens simply because it's not supposed to happen. As far as I know most people lie and those with power use lies to abuse their power on a routine basis. This mostly how it is and if you think otherwise without good reason then you may be in for a shock.
I recently got prosecuted for speeding which I am pretty sure I was not speeding. I just wanted to see the evidence, if they could prove it to me then no need for court. However they would not show evidence so I said OK then take me to court. Which they did, but without summoning me, so I was found guilty in my absence. They simply don't have the time, money or inclination for justice.
I'm sick of hearing this crap. If living in a country that has law enforcement is so terrible, there are a bunch of choices, so go make one.
I hear Somalia is lovely this time of year, particularly if you like sailing. Then again, you could go and live on one of those abandoned oil platforms and join the rest of the revolutionaries.
I don't give a rats if they stop me, treat me like a twat and force me to go over to the station and submit all my proof of identity just because they're bored. I'd rather put up wqith that than getting shot thanks.
On topic, why the hell they bothered trying to get the site taken down is beyond me. The correct approach is to collect the data on the individuals who run it and pay them a visit. 4am wearing riot gear for preference.
Quote: "I don't give a rats if they stop me, treat me like a twat and force me to go over to the station and submit all my proof of identity."
Please supply address so they can pay you a visit & batter your front door at 04.00 hrs.
You never know, they might even provide a little stick to bite on while they do an internal search as well.
Hey, I'm all for the police not harasing innocent individuals going about their daily lives and I firmly believe in the right to peaceful protest, but having read some of that site I see that these are just the usual neo-anarchists who use barrack room lawyer tactics to serve their own devious purposes.
There is no moral high ground when you advocate destruction of evidence and there should never be denials of violent acts.
They are clearly not noble in their cause.
You need permission to protest in the UK. If that is not granted then your protest is illegal. Simply being there at the same protest as vandalism is taking place probably makes you guilty. It's probably good advice not to co-operate with the police. You can see what sort of mission they are on by the fact they had the website removed.
I've heard it argued elsewhere that telling people who were at the demonstration to get rid of clothes, text messages, etc cannot possibly be destruction of evidence unless the person in question has actually been accused of a crime -- otherwise anybody getting rid of anything at any time would be destruction of evidence, if it later turned out that it could have been of use to the police.
IANAL, but it seems a logical argument to me.
The fact that you haven't been accused/arrested yet doesn't determine if you destroyed evidence.
If you kill someone, have your tshirt full of that person blood and you burn it, you destroyed the evidence...
On the other hand, while I usually support FitWatch action against the police building up files of peaceful political protesters (just in case...), I believe they should have stick to the usual arrest sheet reminding people of their rights, that they don't have to answer any question and should contact a lawyer.... telling them to shave their head and grow a beard sounds a bit childish :-(
Yep, it's evidence regardless of if you have been charged with a crime or not.
fitwatch were encouraging changing your appearance and one of the next sections said words to the effect of "just because you can identify yourself in a photo or video doesn't mean a Jury will be able to, a simple not me gov has gotten many people off the hook"
I call that lying under oath, legally known as perjury or perverting the course of justice.
Frankly, I had been of the impression that fitwatch was looking to cover what the police were up to and thereby protect peoples rights. It now looks like they are trying to give advice on how to evade prosecution by destroying evidence and advising lying under oath. That seems a bit pro criminal, anti justice for my liking.
Evidence of what? That you were at a demonstration?
The police would like to identify everybody at the protest to add to their DNA and CRB database as potential trouble makers, otherwise why have FIT. Would you like that to happen to you just for attending a largely peaceful demonstration? The advice is aimed at the majority of attendees who got caught up in a small part of a protest that has been blown up out of all proportion. Once things do get out of hand the police generally cordon off the area and prevent anybody from leaving partly so as to get better photos of all participants innocent or otherwise. If you think this is just to be able to identify witnesses then you need a gullibility check, those witnesses will be processed as suspects and be recorded as such no matter what spin the police put on it. Personally, I'd rather not get a potential criminal record due to acts of others and would follow such advice so as not to.
"It now looks like they are trying to give advice on how to evade prosecution by destroying evidence and advising lying under oath. That seems a bit pro criminal, anti justice for my liking."
Even so, do they not have a right to give such advice?
Clearly they do. I am an adult and fully capable of drawing sensible conclusions in spite of any bad advice I might read on the internet. If the police care so much about it, where is their "good" advice for what to do at a protest? Oh that's right, they don't want you to protest ever, about anything. That I find to be far more disturbing than a few teenage vandals with too much time on their hands.
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."
"JustHost sent us a frankly baffling statement of legalese this morning claiming it could not divulge customer information without a subpoena or court order."
This, after closing down one of its own customers on the say-so of an "acting Detective Inspector" at least gives me my answer to: Should we be finding better places to host stuff?
Yep, time to up and not walk, but run, run away! Away!
...that it's not just these wannabe so-called eco-warriors (WARRIOR?! Don't make me fucking laugh. A warrior not some fuckwit who looks like Worzel Gummidge and who can't hold down a job, for fuck sake, a WARRIOR is someone who joins the Armed Services and fights for his or her country), anyhow, if those unemployed gobshites read that stuff, they will now potentially know how to avoid prosecution for knocking over someones granny and robbing her of her meagre pension for another hit of speed, or whatever.
As if we needed more layabouts to know how to do it...
Event the bloody brats down the local estate know how to do that already, the gobby bustards.
I've bloody had it with this planet. Halt the rotation, I wanna get off.
... I'll agree with your comments. Until then, anything that levels the playing field so that the ordinary person has a chance against the forces of "law and order" (ha ha ha) is just fine by me.
It is up to those that want law to be seen to adhering to it, otherwise it is anarchy.
This does not surp[rise me in the slighest, I know what the Met/Police are like. I can also say that
they are not alone in disliking websites that do not "tow the party line" . I put up a website that simply poked fun at David Blunkett because of his pathetic answers on Mastermind some while ago. I was very surprised when lawyers acting for the Labour Govt contacted my webhost and on pain of legal proceedings forced them to take the website down. Now THAT was surely over the top. They backed down after I referred matter to a journalist, but it does highlight just how paranoid Labour are about anyone saying anything they havent approved !. No wonder they turned UK into a Police State.
This is my first exposure to FitWatch, as I am in the USA. We have our own issues with police and their scoutmasters. Attacks on CriticalMass rides and on the peaceful demonstrations against the Republican National Convention a few years back may be familiar to those across the pond.
Yes, we want the police to stop muggings. We really don't need them to mug us when they or their bosses disagree with our politics.
"......We really don't need them to mug us when they or their bosses disagree with our politics." Well, if you behave like the majority of the student protestors did on the Westminster march, that is you protest within the law, then you should be fine, regardless of your political beliefs. However, if you commit an illegal act, like the rent-a-mob morons that gatecrashed Millbank, then you will be pursued by the Police, just as if you were an ordinary mugger. Political faith does not make you immune to the law. And, should you offer advice to those that may have committed a crime, in the hope that it will help them avoid prosecution, then you will be committing a crime under either US or UK law. Should you ever leave the comfie circle of your equally-deluded buddies and actually get the chance to talk to a copper, either here or in the US, you'll find they're actually people too, they have a wide range of political views and can actually think for themselves, and they would much rather be protecting grannies from muggers than having to police student protests.
Where have you spent the last 50 years, Matt -- herding cows?
I'm one of those "grannies", and I have talked with quite a few "coppers" over the years. They do indeed have a wide range of political views, including some very negative ones. The difference between them and everybody else is their entitlement to use force. Once in a while we are able to prosecute one or two who overstep their duties. Nobody has been able to do anything about various Mayors of New York City, who order attacks.
Currently our "finest" have been falsifying precinct statistics to reflect well on the precincts and the Mayor. Political faith does indeed make you immune to the law, whatever country you live in.
Offering advice to those who "may have committed a crime" is part of our legal structure. It is how we got through the Civil Rights and Anti-War periods. Frequently it has saved lives.
Remember Stonewall? That was the event when the drag queens in a bar discovered they were tired of being shaken down by the police, and fought back. It was the beginning of the Gay Rights movement in the U.S.
".....Where have you spent the last 50 years, Matt...." Well, amongst other activities I have lived, worked and travelled in a number of countries abroad, some with very unattractive politics. I always smile when someone asserts that the US or UK is turning into a "police state" as I've seen the real thing, and we're not even vaguely close.
".....Once in a while we are able to prosecute one or two who overstep their duties....." Which implies there are checks and balances that mean "bad" cops get caught and prosecuted. Like all criminals, some bad cops are smarter than others and will not be caught, but to simply assume that all cops are bad because of the behaviour of a few is simply silly.
".....Currently our "finest" have been falsifying precinct statistics...." I think you'll find that it is the management level that are falsifying the figures. In fact, I can't think of a single company I have ever worked for where management didn't play the system and "massaged" the figures, either for their own gains (career or bonuses) or to protect their teams. I might have to admit to playing that game as well. Alledgedly, of course!
"....Offering advice to those who "may have committed a crime" is part of our legal structure...." In this case, the "advice" went beyond legal counsel and suggested criminal activity - destruction of property and perjury - which are crimes under both UK and US law. I think that the view from your moral hobbyhorse is preventing you from seeing that. Did you read and comprehend the bit about how you might feel diferently if it was a neo-Nazi site giving similar advice?
"....Remember Stonewall?...." Yes, I do. But here's an amusing thought - we suddenly have a mass student protest, one of the largest in years, when cuts in education are planned. Some might insinuate that the students seem a lot readier to protest when it's a ConsLib cut, but I'm sure the NSU is above such petty political manipulations (yes, that sound you hear is me chuckling at that idea). But where were all these high-minded students when happenings like the genocide in Darfur came to light? I know we had students out protesting Darfur, but even IndyMedia admits the protest at Westminster in 25th May 2008 was a paltry 200 people, including many non-students. Are we to presume the student are much more prepared to protest against measures that might affect their own lifestyles rather than the injustices they often proclaim to be so important to them? Persih the thought!
But now, thanks to the Met, I've been enlightened.
For those of you too lazy to read the site, FIT = Forward Intelligence Team, the folks who infiltrate protestors & take photos of protesters.
Hey, I would have thought this was reasonable law enforcement until I learnt that comedian MARK THOMAS was on their 'list'. A journalist found one of FIT's confidential memos (or something) that had Mark Thomas down as a potential troublemaker (or something).
I love the internet :) The Met's legal team & top brass are crying into their cornflakes, for being shady, and that makes me happy.
re AC 17th November 2010 19:08 GMT
I'm guessing here, but I fancy what you're looking for is effective policing? You ain't going to get that, because the cops prefer to act as an army of occupation: so much more fun surrounding a lawyer with 50+ plus gunmen and blowing him away (let's kill all the lawyers, ha ha only quoting Shakespeare, cps please note) than being a beat policeman.
So far as the warrior stuff goes; perhaps you're an old soldier, but for my part I'm going to have to be a lot more wound up than I am now before I come out fighting. These people are doing things I wouldn't do because I'm afraid of the fight, so let's have less of the cowardice stuff.
Also, never forget that violence works, to an extent. Phase one of thatcherism was accompanied by some fairly serious rioting, not just kids chucking things around. Shortly afterwards Heseltine was scurrying round the country throwing money about like it was going out of fashion.
The first Phase of Thatcherism was to get the forces of repression and control on side, with wage hikes for the judiciary, to ensure minimal interference , the top brass of the police , to ensure they would lead on overtime and then some "Maggie's boot boys", and if they failed, a wage hike to the upper echelons of the military as a back stop. THEN the assault on the lower classes began.
the first months of the Thatcher regime may not be analogous with the un-mandated current Junta This government failed by not getting the police on side. Rumours continue to circulate to the effect that when the Security workers in Millbank rang the plods for help in the face of the stoodents understandable anger, they where told because of manpower cuts , there may be some delay in turning up.
Frankly putting such websites off line is more like book-burning than policing by consent , that is supposed to be the hallmark of our democracy, (Demos was in fact a slave state.)
"....so much more fun surrounding a lawyer with 50+ plus gunmen and blowing him away...." I presume you're referring to Mark Saunders, who had already fired his shotgun into a child's bedroom in a neighbouring house. I wonder if you'd be so blindly anit-Police if that had been your house and your child's bedroom? Your blinkered hatred is simply too stupid for words, please go back to school and get an education.
Don't know why Plod got all excited over this web site. It's hardly provoking.
There are several other web sites that really get down to nitty-gritty of provocation; offensive tactics and the like.
Toronto and Quebec police even have undercovers participating in leading the damage - in Toronto they wore the same boots as police but had socks of different colours on each foot so the riot police wouldn't whack them.
I think american TV crime shows give more 'law perverting' tips than Fitwatch does.
The fundamental problem is rotten apples combined with excessive autonomy.
The police service in a democratic society should have its mission statement written for it by effective local police authorities elected by the people and be policed itself by a real version of the IPCC which has effective power to arrest police on suspicion and prosecute effectively. (The present IPCC is (a) in bed with the police, and (b) the bastard offspring of a paper tiger and a toothless toy poodle. It is excellent only at producing the whitewashes required by the government of the day.)
Oh, and the recruitment of police officers should be under the control of the directly elected police authority, not the police service.
At present the bad cops get in power and then perpetuate the situation by recruiting more of the same. Then they start up a private limited company (ACPO) which has no statutory function, for the sole purpose of creating a back-door national gendarmerie which is not subject to parliamentary scrutiny. They finance this largely by selling the DNA which they harvest from the willy-nilly arrest of innocent people most of whom are released without charge.
Politicians love it as they can pretend that the police are independent local services under the control of local police authorities whilst having at their disposal a national para-military force armed with Heckler & Koch weapons shortly to be enhanced to fully automatic - ie: battlefield condition - and which will be issued openly with the dum dum bullets (illegal in civilised countries since 1898) which they already routinely use (as in the murder of an innocent Brazilian electrician on his way to work - 7 dum dum bullets in the head whilst they held him down, and no doubt high-velocity dum dum rounds were used against the mentally disturbed lawyer armed only with a shotgun - which is not lethal at any realistic range).
All of this without any parliamentary scrutiny, much less control.
Police state? It's already here in all but name.
The only effective control of the police would be to disarm them immediately and make weapons (held in armouries under the control of directly elected police authorities) available to them only under strict supervision of a justice of the peace when a prima facie case can be made for armed response. At least 90% of police resort to guns is merely macho willy-waving.
OK, just for all the conspiracy theorists and Police-haters posting here, I'll explain in very simple terms why the Police asked for the site to be taken down. It really is quite simple - by providing the advice that could be used to pervert the course of the Law, there was a chance that a crime (destruction of evidence) would be committed. The Police do not just sit down and wait for a crime to happen, they are also charged with PREVENTING crime where they can. They would not have acted if they thought a greater crime was to follow as they could then wait for that crime and gain a stronger case and conviction, but it was unlikely in this case. They also did not send out a SWAT team and kick doors down at 4am in the morning, they simply sent an email to the hosters. If you are going to squeal and whine about an email advising someone that the course they are following could lead to them getting in trouble then there really is little hope for you ever getting any sense of proportion in your life.
I'm guessing you all would be a lot less upset if it had been a webiste giving advice to neo-Nazis on how to beat up students and then avoid prosecution, in fact you'd probably be squealing and howling if the Police hadn't sought the take down of such a site.
Or have we already forgotten the example set by senior police officers?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/19/pceu_tribunal/
I once had a very interesting chat (on a French campsite) with a senior Dutch police officer. It was his job to travel around Europe studying other police forces. His comments on the British police were that there is a carefully-maintained culture of separation from the public. He said British police not only worked together but also lived and socialised together. This led to the automatic creation of an "us and them" mentality where the "them" is the general population. He said this kind of behaviour was generally discouraged amongst other European police forces because it made the creation of a bond of trust with the public extremely difficult, and it also increased the likelihood of police misconduct being covered up by colleagues.
There are serious problems with the police in the UK, and there have been for years (Birmingham Six, Guildford 4, Carl Bridgewater case etc, etc). In the coming months the police will be called upon more and more to respond to the consequences of the mistakes of the non-mandated Westminster gang. Lets see how that pans out.
AC because although I don't live in the UK any more (what? you still do?) I have to visit from time to time...