[size=18]First person charged under new protest laws appears in court[/size]Liberty represents peaceful demonstrator against new security laws
26 Jan 2006Today Milan Rai, the first person to be charged with 'organising an unauthorised demonstration' under the Serious Organised Crime and Policing Act 2005 (SOCPA), pleaded not guilty before Bow Magistrates Court. His case has been adjourned for trial until 16 March. Rai and another peaceful protester, Maya Evans, were arrested last year near Downing Street as they read out the names of 97 UK soldiers killed in Iraq.
James Welch, Legal Director for Liberty, said:
“These new security laws did not intend to protect Parliamentarians from hearing a memorial to dead soldiers. Using them for this purpose is absurd and stifles our traditional rights to free expression and assembly.”
In December 2005 Maya Evans was convicted of ‘participating in an unauthorised demonstration’ under SOCPA. She is challenging this decision in the High Court.
Liberty Press Office on 0207 378 3656 or 07973 831 128
NOTES TO EDITORS
1. The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (SOCPA) prohibits any demonstrations of one person or more within 1 square kilometre of the Houses of Parliament unless permission has been sought in writing from the police in advance. Generally at least 6 days notice should be given, although a minimum of at least 24 hours notice will suffice where this isn't practicable. Under SOCPA, an individual may be charged with organising a demonstration, participating in a demonstration, or demonstrating as an individual without permission.
2. James Welch, the Legal Director for Liberty representing Milan Rai, formerly challenged the Official Secrets Act charges on behalf of whistleblower Katharine Gun.
[url=http://liberty-human-rights.org.uk/press/2006/first-case-under-new-prote...
Hmmm.... police state anyone?
The Lover is ever drunk with love;
He is free, he is mad,
He dances with ecstasy and delight.
Caught by our own thoughts,
We worry about every little thing,
But once we get drunk on that love,
Whatever will be, will be.
ɐɥɐɥ
gov are going to ban crisps, fizzy drinks and chocolate/sweets in schools in a drive to encourage healthy eating? We all want healthy kids but is it the states job to dictate what our kids can and cannot eat? So a child could no longer come with a packed lunch that included a packet of crisps...seems crazy to me. Shouldn't the parents dictate what their kids consume.
Also all the powers of the state and home can't prevent a child from going to the corner shop for a fizzy drink, how will this law work? :roll: "You've got detention son, i saw you drinking a can of Pepsi" :roll:
Well this is one topic the state can't accuse muslims of being extreme upon lol