(via Adam Savage on Twitter)

Preventing people from taking photographs in public spaces is ridiculous.

I imagine the “Terrorism Act” is cited quite often (but not necessarily any specific part) by private security as a reason why photography wouldn’t be allowed, even in public spaces. But it’s a stupid reason. It’s one step removed from insisting that passersby should cover their avert their gazes and cover their eyes as they walk by these places. Terrorists wouldn’t go to the trouble of doing reconnaissance with photography. All they’d need is a pen and a pad of paper and good memory would be a bonus. It would be less conspicuous. And if that was all they needed, then hell, the view from Google Maps might even be sufficient.

Google the definition of “kettling” and Wiktionary tells me it’s “the practice of police surrounding a hostile mob (usually of protesters) and not letting them disperse”. Doesn’t really do it justice, does it?

I have to confess that until reading this, I actually had no idea how horribly inhumane kettling can be- at least in the way that it is applied by the police here. Not by a long shot. Now that I know, I’m having a lot of difficulty understanding how police can make use of it so seemingly routinely. Laurie Penny really brings home the reality of kettling.

Forming a barrier to stop a march moving forwards beyond a certain point is one thing but to completely surround and stop people even leaving is unforgivable.

The way these people were treated must violate every possible definition of human rights to varying degrees. They were confined for an extended period of time without food, without water, not having access to toilets and later when it become cold, potentially without warmth.

It seems that the police were keen on engineering their own self fulfilling prophecy: their objective was to control a mob of troublemakers. It didn’t matter that they weren’t troublemakers- because of course they would become so and so obviously they would needed to be controlled.

The way that kettling was applied here seems to have had the objective of turning an otherwise peaceful protest into a violent riot which would justify the police action which caused it in the first place.

Thinking about what I’ve written up to this point, I’ve realised that the title I’ve used is perhaps inaccurate - so by changing the “one” to “(n)one” I think I’m better reflecting the situation.

The democratic right to peaceful protest has at the very least been severely curtailed already. It’s quite sad- whatever reason they might give: whether it’s national security, public safety, etc.

Now it looks like basic human rights are being disregarded too. Could this be why the Tories are so keen on scrapping the Human Rights Act and replacing it with a “British bill of rights”? Since 2005, under Michael Howard, the Tories have wanted to do this. Perhaps the supporters of that proposal may be right that certain people are inappropriately finding and exploiting loopholes based on the act to support claims for compensation and the like. However, that’s not the point here. The point is that this proposal would mean that it’s our government, under the Conservatives, who would decide what *our* human rights are.

Given what we’ve seen from this government (okay, I’m looking at Labour too), are we sure we want them to have that power over us? Do we want the Tories to tell us what our human rights are?

Perhaps it’s not perfect but at least the European Convention on Human Rights, via the Human Rights Act, means that it’s out of the control of the government. I don’t want the government deciding what they can do to us without some external checks and balances.

Amplify’d from www.newstatesman.com

Inside the Whitehall kettle

Posted by Laurie Penny - 25 November 2010 16:48

Police violence against children

Take a protest, one whose premise is uncomfortable for the administration - say, yesterday’s protest, with thousands of teenagers from all over London walking out of lessons and marching spontaneously on Westminster to voice their anger at government cuts to education funding which will prevent thousands from attending college and university. Toss in hundreds of police officers with riot shields, batons, dogs, armoured horses and meat wagons, then block the protesters into an area of open space with no toilets, food or shelter, for hours. If anyone tries to leave, shout at them and hit them with sticks. It doesn’t sound like much, but it’s effective.

I didn’t understand quite how bad things had become in this country until I saw armed cops being deployed against schoolchildren in the middle of Whitehall. These young people joined the protest to defend their right to learn, but in the kettle they are quickly coming to realise that their civil liberties are of less consequence to this government than they had ever imagined The term ‘kettle’ is rather apt, given that penning already-outraged people into a small space tends to make tempers boil and give the police an excuse to turn up the heat, and it doesn’t take long for that to happen. When they understand that are being prevented from marching to parliament by three lines of cops and a wall of riot vans, the kids at the front of the protest begin to moan. “It’s ridiculous that they won’t let us march,” says Melissa, 15, who has never been in trouble before. “We can’t even vote yet, we should be allowed to have our say.”

Read more at www.newstatesman.com

 See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/ggr8