Sunny,

Since when does the right to protest give someone the right to illegally trespass? Couldn’t the protesters from UKuncut have made their point by protesting outside the building without breaking any laws? And if not, surely they must have made a concious choice to break the law and go to prison as a price worth paying to make their point?

In relation to F&M, we have a right to protest but it isn’t absolute: we don’t have a right to disrupt the lawful activities of other people, hence aggravated trespass charges (CPS guidance) against “occupations”. If the shock at this is real, UK Uncut et al erred in not making would-be occupiers aware of the risks.

@ 1 and 2

Agree to the extent that if you deliberately break the law to prove a point, it’s a bit sily to act surprised when you’re charged.

However: DID they break the law? Obviously entering a shop during business hours is lawful. Wouldn’t that mean that, for convictions to stick, the prosecution would have to prove the protesters were asked to leave but didn’t?

I’m also uncomfortable with aggravated trespass as a law, because it seems deliberately designed to prevent protest. But I accept that’s a wider issue.

concerning the police saying they would not be arrested and then arresting them … can the police lie like that, legally?

Interestingly, students and UK Uncut have trouble demonstrating without violence – some kind of self expression? – but then “racist thugs” like EDL and “reactionaries” like Countryside Alliance are able to march without wreaking havoc or throwing stones at others.

http://inspectorgadget.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/student-protesters-can-behave-if-they-want-to/

Chaise,

However: DID they break the law? Obviously entering a shop during business hours is lawful.

Please – with respect, and I mean that – let’s not go through this nonsense again. Occupiers are not merely entering, browsing and leaving the shop – the clue is in “occupier”, not to mention the activities discussed on the UK Uncut site etc.

Wouldn’t that mean that, for convictions to stick, the prosecution would have to prove the protesters were asked to leave but didn’t?

I don’t know – I don’t think so, because a person is a trespasser if he enters a shop not for the the purposes of shopping.

I’m also uncomfortable with aggravated trespass as a law, because it seems deliberately designed to prevent protest. But I accept that’s a wider issue.

AIUI it originated from hunt sabotage; it was amended to include “inside” buildings to deal with animal lab occupations. Yes, it is designed to prevent protest of that particular kind, but look at this from another angle – should people be free to prevent other people from engaging in lawful activities?

Luis,

concerning the police saying they would not be arrested and then arresting them … can the police lie like that, legally?

Who lied? The police claim it was not an intentional falsehood.

Lol @ #5.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxdTEVzzr_s

Who lied? The police claim it was not an intentional falsehood.

Terrifying.

Sunny – why aren’t you telling your readers that Defend the Right to Protest is a front for the SWP?

Why are cynical far-left parasites allowed to hijack every cause, with mainstream socialists and radicals falling lamely into line under the direction of people with no genuine commitment to freedom of speech or other ‘bourgeois’ values?

This also shows the importance of an Electoral System that provides a more effective voice for the opinions of the British People and reduce the necessity for “Violent” protest. Pity the opportunity to make any form of progress on this has for the time being passed us by?