What is behind this rash of dispersal orders?

THERE are always plenty of people around who are very quick to scoff at anyone who points to the frightening theft of individual freedom in current society.

They refuse to see that we are anywhere near a police state and regard any warnings of increasing similarities with totalitarian regimes as not only absurd but offensive to their precious sensibilities.

Perhaps the reason why the head-in-the-sand brigade cannot see what is happening is that they have not being paying attention to an unrelenting erosion of liberties which has deliberately been carried out gradually, so as not to draw it to the attention of the distracted majority.

Worthing folk who read The Porkbolter newsletter will, like us, have seen a constant stream of examples over recent years.

And these measures are often introduced first in areas where little controversy or opposition is likely to be sparked.

For instance, those who remember the introduction of CCTV to the streets of  Sussex in the 1990s may recall that it was first rolled out in smaller towns where there is virtually no crime.

Likewise, the list of places on the receiving end of dispersal orders is looking suspiciously like a collection of soft targets.

As well as Bangor, mentioned in our last post, others towns affected include Andover, Swindon and Borehamwood - none of which, as far as we can recall, were involved in the 2011 riots.

But who exactly are the forces behind the scenes pushing for the dispersal orders to be inflicted on towns with no real crime probleem?

A clue perhaps comes from Kent, where retail giant Tesco was reported to have been pushing for the draconian measure.

It wanted the order in Hawkinge "to stop yobs from clambering on the store roof and kicking footballs at the walls".

Yobs? Funny how all local newspapers seem to assume that anyone threatened with a dispersal order must be a "yob", even if they're only playing football.

Is that what these orders are for? Protecting business interests from the public? It is certainly noticeable that the Section 30 zone in Worthing is pretty much the shopping area (plus a couple of parks).

With the real reasons behind the Section 30 hidden behind a wall of meaningless official verbiage, can anyone tell us what all this is actually about?

Sinister spread of dispersal orders

 
IT'S not just Worthing that's being treated to Orwellian policing this summer, it seems.

The equally inoffensive Welsh seaside town - officially a city - of Bangor has also had a dispersal order slapped on it.

The Daily Mail quotes our fellow civil rights campaigners up there as describing the Section 30 order as "the kind of draconian law you’d expect in North Korea".

So what's going on? Is this some kind of sinister experiment being carried out on 'soft' targets across the UK to see if the state can get away with imposing a police state on the population?

Saturday's protest is just the beginning!

SUPPOSING the authorities announced that under a new law it would be illegal to do anything at all in Worthing, if the police said so.

But, in response to public outrage, the local police chief insisted that his officers were sensible people and would not actually arrest anyone for doing anything that would not normally be seen as a crime.

Would that be acceptable?

And yet that is pretty much the situation we are in today, with draconian powers imposed on much of the town centre, plus Homefield and Victoria parks, but police stressing they will not be abusing them.

This is not how law and justice is supposed to work. Where's the accountability? Who is policing the police? Why should we have to take their word for it that they will not misuse powers they should never have been granted in the first place?

That is why we are not "reassured" by the messages being put out by police, as others may have been - there is a crucial point of principle at stake here which transcends the qualities or intentions of the individuals involved.

And that is why the protest on Saturday is not the culmination of the campaign against the Section 30 order imposed on Worthing - it's just the beginning!

The Porkbolter have posted the following report on Saturday's protest:

Well done to the dozen or so supporters of the Worthing Freedom Campaign who picketed Worthing police station in Chatsworth Road on Saturday in protest at the draconian Section 30 order imposed on the town. 

That particular spot does not actually form part of the Dispersal Order zone, so police could not have tried to use the powers against the protesters - but, to be fair, they did not give the impression they wanted to anyway. 

As well as the main protest, to which the Worthing Herald sent a photographer, some people decided to help out the police by chalking lines on pavements around town showing where the Section 30 zone begins. 

Passers-by in Warwick Street were alerted to the existence and handed information leaflets. Needless to say, there was general incredulity that Worthing is deemed deserving of these highly unusual policing measures. 

Evidence is now suggesting that it is the Tory admininstration at Worthing Borough Council, rather then the police themselves, who are the main players behind this attack on our freedom.

Media report protest plans

 
THE Argus have picked up on this Saturday's protest plans and have put a story on their website.

Sussex Police are still trying to claim the Section 30 is not the assault on our freedom that it so clearly is.

Says Acting Superintendent Ian Pollard, Sussex Police’s district commander for Adur and Worthing: "It is not a blanket ban on groups or a curfew on young people – powers to disperse people are only used if they are acting antisocially."

But that just begs the question. Who decides if people are "acting antisocially"? It's the police themselves,  with no need for any proper evidence!

They can even decide to apply the order if they claim it is "likely" that people will behave antisocially at some unspecified point in the near future.

We'll say it again - if someone really is considered to be behaving antisocially they can be arrested under existing legislation and processed through the courts system, which gives them a right to be represented by a solicitor and defend themselves.

If they're not actually doing anything wrong, then they should be left alone.

As far as the under-16s curfew issue is concerned, the detailed listing of the contents of the Order, from the link provided by Sussex Police, certainly contains the measures.

If there is a specific version of the order that has been issued for Worthing, maybe they should put the whole thing online for the public to scrutinise?

Better still, maybe they should have done that before they brought it in - and a proper debate could have been held with all the facts explored in detail.

As it is, all we can do is express our disquiet, urge others to do likewise and repeat our plea for the Section 30 order to be withdrawn in the clear absence of any genuine justification that outweighs the loss of our local liberties.

Sledgehammer to crack a walnut

PRESSURE is growing on Sussex Police to withdraw their draconian and totally over-the-top Dispersal Order for Worthing, as they concede it has sparked some "very negative" responses.

In a classic case of taking a sledgehammer to crack open a walnut, the force is claiming it needs the Section 30 order imposed on the town centre for the whole summer to stamp out "anti-social behaviour as a result of street drinking".

But street drinking is already banned in Worthing town centre (though not getting drunk in a pub and then going out onto the streets, which means the ban is aimed at protecting the breweries' profits and those who can afford to buy their over-priced products).

And if someone does act in an aggressive way there are plenty of laws already in place that allow police to arrest them.

So why on earth do we need a blanket order that gives police powers to 'disperse' two people walking down the road together, if for some reason they decide to claim they think it is 'likely' their behaviour will upset someone?

Occupy Worthing have joined those warning of the dangerous implications of this order, which takes us a big step further towards a police state, where someone can be found 'guilty' of something before they have even done it!

In a post on Facebook they say: "This order may be open to many abuses, as Police Officers and PCSO’s can choose to use their powers on anyone as soon as they interact with another person.

"They could arbitrarily decide to ban you from the Town Centre for 24hrs. For example, if you are lawfully exercising your right to free speech or they don’t like the way you look, what you have on your T-shirt, or if you are home-less, or maybe they just don’t like you.

"In fact they can use this power as they please, without any burden of proof, without any evidence whatsoever. You have no recourse against their decision, no way to appeal.

"Worthing is the only town in the south of England to have requested and been granted a Section 30 Order for such a large area and long time. Is our anti-social behaviour that bad? Do we really want Worthing to be labelled a problem town, just so the Police can have extra powers to play with?

"There are more than enough laws and powers available for the Police to tackle crime in Worthing, when a crime has actually occurred. Without relying on Police to be psychic and attempting to solve crimes that may never happen.

"We believe that this power is not needed in Worthing and is more suited to Communist China or Nazi Germany, please join us in registering your disapproval of this decision by Worthing Borough Council and Sussex Police.

"Join the ‘Occupy Worthing’ Facebook Group – Watch ‘Occupy Worthing’ clips on YouTube. – E-Mail your Council."

We have also seen a copy of a letter from local resident Bill Geddes to Worthing Borough Council, which is collaborating with the police over the Section 30 order.

He writes: "Yet again a 'ban' is to be imposed which is quite unnecessary and will most probably lead to incidents on the streets of the town.

"What on earth are you and the local Police afraid of? An outsider might imagine that Worthing is a seething hotbed of crime and bad behaviour, rather than the sleepy backwater it really is."

Meanwhile Dan Thompson, who raised the profile of the issue on Twitter during the week, has now apparently been on the receiving end of two phone calls from Sussex Police officers trying to justify the unjustifiable.

His verdict is that he he still thinks "it's a bad law and isn't needed".

He has also now added a new statement from the police, which refers to "some very negative online responses" to the Section 30 order.

This attempt to reassure the public that nothing sinister is going on is, however, less than convincing.

For a start, the police claim the curfew element of  Section 30, targeting under-16s, does not apply to Worthing. And yet the legislation - the link for which was Tweeted for public information by Sussex Police themselves - clearly includes the relevant clause in the main body and not under the 'supplemental' headings.

They also insist the S30 "is not a blanket ban on meeting up or a curfew". While it is clearly not a ban as such, it does mean that police can stop people being together in public on what is more or less a whim and certainly without any offences having been committed. That's not justice!

The police also say: "The powers have only been brought in so we are able to target acts of aggressive disorder, alcohol fuelled disorder."

But, once again, that sort of behaviour is already against the law and, no doubt, has been ever since the police were invented! The powers they have now got in Worthing enable the police to target people who have done nothing wrong, by claiming that they thought they were 'likely' to misbehave in some ill-defined way. That is not the same thing at all!

In a letter about the order sent out this week to Worthing businesses, and some residents, PC Marvin Lucas concludes: "You should not have to put up with the inconsiderate behaviour of any group of people."

No, we shouldn't. And that is why we continue to oppose this nasty order which has been inflicted on our town and call upon Sussex Police and Worthing Borough Council to withdraw it in the face of so much opposition.

Ideally, they might like to do so before Saturday June 9 so they can save themselves the bother of policing the 12 noon protest outside Worthing's town centre police station in Chatsworth Road (see previous post).

No to curfew! No to police state laws!

Picket/protest at Worthing police station

12 noon, Saturday 9th June 2012

Chatsworth Road, Worthing town centre

 

AN OUTRAGEOUS attack on our freedom has been launched by Sussex Police in collaboration with Worthing Borough Council.

They have imposed on us the type of draconian legislation that would normally be deployed by a dictatorship trying to put down a revolution!

The sinister Section 30 Dispersal Order came into place on Friday June 1 and will last the whole summer, until August 31. It means police have the power to “disperse” groups of two or more people - even if you have done nothing wrong! The cops just have to claim it is “likely” your presence may upset someone - this gives free rein to the worst kind of police bullying and intimidation.

And the order includes a 9pm curfew for anyone under 16, whom the police can take home if they find them out without their parents. If you ignore the order - no matter how unfair it is - you can be jailed for three months or fined £2,500.

No justification for this nazi-style approach to policing has been produced.

The police have said it is about protecting businesses and the council say it is about ‘the Jubilee and Olympic festivities’. This is not good enough!

We don’t need this fascist law in Worthing. This is a town not a prison camp!

We are all innocent unless proven guilty - if someone commits a crime, then the police can prosecute them.

Join us in our call for this disgraceful and unnecessary police-state order to be withdrawn immediately!

See previous posts for more details 

Dispersal order is an attack on freedom in Worthing

And here is follow-up piece from The Porkbolter which goes into a bit more detail.

THE CLOSER you look at the draconian dispersal order being imposed on the people of Worthing from Friday June 1, the worse it looks. The fundamental injustice of it all is that it gives police powers to harass people who have not committed any offence.

We all know that there are plenty of laws out there already that make it a crime to cause a public nuisance, threaten people, be drunk in public etc etc – presumably the kind of thing they ostensibly have in mind. If someone has committed such an offence then it is up to the police to arrest them and have them prosecuted in court where the case can be proven or not.

But the Section 30 order is clearly designed to do away with the troublesome need for someone to have committed any offence before they are punished by the authorities. The only proviso is that “a constable in uniform has reasonable grounds for believing that the presence or behaviour of a group of two or more persons in any public place in the relevant locality has resulted, or is likely to result, in any members of the public being intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed.”

There are some big get-out clauses here. “Reasonable grounds” for a start. What does that mean? How can that be clearly proven one way or the other? The reference to “presence or behaviour of a group” is also worrying. How can the mere ‘presence’ of people at a certain place constitute anti-social behaviour, unless they are behaving in such a way as to justify that accusation? This is akin to saying that certain types of people are simply not allowed to be in certain parts of town – a dangerous precdent!

Another key phrase is “has resulted, or is likely to result”. This sets out quite plainly that the cops are entitled to victimise people who haven’t actually done anything wrong “yet” – as long as they claim they have “reasonable grounds” for thinking they are probably going to do so! So if you and a friend are sitting on a park bench having a quiet chat but, for reasons of his own (and who can guess at the impenetrable workings of a cop’s brain?), a passing plod decides your mere presence in the park is likely to result in others being alarmed, you can be “directed” to go home or leave town. There is no right to appeal against this or defend yourself. The policeman’s opinion is effectively law.

If you decide to ignore the direction then you have breached the order and can be sent to prison or fined a huge amount of money. For what? For standing up against arbitrary interference in your life imposed without the due process of law as we have come to know it in this country.

Sussex Police are also being less than wholly truthful when they claim in their press release that the order “is not designed to create an exclusion zone or a curfew area”.

The legislation states: “If, between the hours of 9pm and 6am, a constable in uniform finds a person in any public place in the relevant locality who he has reasonable grounds for believing— (a)is under the age of 16, and (b)is not under the effective control of a parent or a responsible person aged 18 or over, he may remove the person to the person’s place of residence unless he has reasonable grounds for believing that the person would, if removed to that place, be likely to suffer significant harm.”

So that’s effectively a sort of 9pm curfew – at the discretion of the cops - for anyone under 16 in Worthing. Is that right and fair?

Why does Worthing need this particular law imposed on us?

Sussex Police did briefly engage with critics on Twitter this week, referring to an “interesting debate already”. It claimed it sought S30 zones “in response to local needs & only disperse if anti-social”. Under questioning, it added: “Local need to address ASB is identifed through partners & public meetings. S30 is just one tactic...” And: “Use is recorded (dispersal or enforcement). Success would be no ASB in area, then can remove S30.”

But, despite being directly asked, it has failed to answer why Worthing in particular needs this draconian order, which gives carte blance to its officers to harass those who have committed no offence, particularly young people. There were no riots in Worthing last summer. There is no Olympic games to protect from pesky protesters.

This looks like a sinister and unprovoked fascistic attack on the liberties of the people of Worthing – and some of us are not prepared to let it go ahead unopposed!