david
That really is interesting and I'd like to know a little more since I
have just written a piece about protest and citizenship focussing partly
on the CJA 1994.
During the research the Home Office admitted that this Act was becoming
increasingly unworkable and that during Newbury for example the police
used a whole range of pieces of (apparently) unrelated legislation in
order to block protest (ers). This included instances where the police
arrested protesters who had chained themselves to the vehicles of
security guards who had parked at motorway service stations i.e. the
scene was a real keystone Kops scenario with security vans being
followed by protesters vehicles who in turn were being followed by
police vans... They used a law designed to stop people preventing
workers from getting to their place of work! Basically because the
forecourt of the motorway station was a public place and the CJA
wouldn't be applicable.
I suppose the moral of the story is that the police will use any law
that can be construed as being relevant. All the mink company, in your
case, needed was a 'good' lawyer who could find a law to fit the
'crime' as it was constructed. I'd like to know a bit more about your
example though...
Gavin Parker
PS This is great, it certainly relieves the bordeom of preparing this
research tender...
----------
From: [log in to unmask]
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Law, the private sector and social control
Date: 24 October 1997 09:47
Some people I know up here in Newcastle have recently been arrested
under
the provisions of the new UK harrassment laws, which are designed to
protect women from stalkers. You're probably thinking that I hang out
with
pretty unsavoury people, but these friends were not stalkers, but animal
rights protestors campaigning against a mink farm.
The company that owns the farm used the law to get an exclusion order on
the protestors, including provisions to prevent them from phoning or
writing to anyone connected with the company. The company was able to do
this as under the harassment law the alledged 'stalker' is not permitted
to
give evidence in court against the complainant.
Having dug into this a little more, it seems that since the law was
introduced, of a dozen or so cases, only one has actually been concerned
with stalking, all of the others have been companies using the law to
prevent protest.
What I was wondering was: Was the law introduced with this intent
(openly
or hidden)? I never gave it a thought at the time. Or, is this merely
business taking advantage of a badly (or conveniently) drafted piece of
legislation?
This opens up all sorts of questions about the way the state cooperates
with the private sector to control dissent, and I would like to know
what
forum members views are...
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|