Kent Police pay compensation to two anarchists | Vital Football

Kent Police pay compensation to two anarchists

Buddha

Vital Football Hero
"The police are using Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act to harass radical political organisers in the UK. The majority of the time this act is used in a racialised way against people of colour.

"Right now, Schedule 7 is being used on a large scale to target Kurdish freedom movement organisers. This is because they are part of a movement which wants to move beyond the state and capitalism.

"The fact that the police settled this case out of court shows that their actions are going beyond their powers. Kent Police settled the case just before it was finally due to be heard in the High Court. This shows that they were worried they might lose."

https://freedomnews.org.uk/kent-pol...uestioning-anarchists-under-anti-terror-laws/
 
I don`t know about this case, Buddha, nor have I followed your link. I`ll say this, though. Police, not just Kent Police, settle loads of cases out of court because they don`t have sufficient funds to challenge the tidal wave of cases/lawsuits brought against them on a weekly basis. There`d be no money left for policing ! Police Federation is frequently frustrated and upset by the messaging that failing to fight civil cases implies - as it understandably plays right into the hands of detractors. So, whilst i`m not challenging the outcome of the matter you raise, nor the right of an individual/group to launch such matter/s, it`s useful to be aware that justifying huge court costs weighs disproportionately high when police consider civil court cases and "settling out of court" doesn`t always reflect guilt. Just saying.... ;)
 
I don`t know about this case, Buddha, nor have I followed your link. I`ll say this, though. Police, not just Kent Police, settle loads of cases out of court because they don`t have sufficient funds to challenge the tidal wave of cases/lawsuits brought against them on a weekly basis. There`d be no money left for policing ! Police Federation is frequently frustrated and upset by the messaging that failing to fight civil cases implies - as it understandably plays right into the hands of detractors. So, whilst i`m not challenging the outcome of the matter you raise, nor the right of an individual/group to launch such matter/s, it`s useful to be aware that justifying huge court costs weighs disproportionately high when police consider civil court cases and "settling out of court" doesn`t always reflect guilt. Just saying.... ;)

I'm aware of that , Lancs. There are various different reasons why some one or some party (in the case the police) might choose to settle out of court. Guilt is one reason, but another is to avoid disclosure of certain things, another, as you say, is expediency.

Perhaps if the police didn't misuse or abuse their powers so frequently there might not be so many cases/lawsuits brought against them? Just saying.... ;)

The police are there to enforce the law but that doesn't mean that they are above the law or are they permitted to use unlawful means when enforcing the law.

Misusing their power by arresting and detaining two anarchists under schedule 7 or the Terrorism Act 2001 and then questioning them about anti capitalist protests, was clearly something that the police, for whatever reason, preferred was settled out of court than within.
 
I got the 'they' and the 'are' the wrong way around. It was a statement not a question!

Oh, OK. Still the same answer though, police MUST act within the law - it`s a reason why they are so disadvantaged when trying to tackle the higher end of organised crime - criminals can use similar tactics to police but don`t have to justify, get permission or explain their actions.
 
Oh, OK. Still the same answer though, police MUST act within the law - it`s a reason why they are so disadvantaged when trying to tackle the higher end of organised crime - criminals can use similar tactics to police but don`t have to justify, get permission or explain their actions.

Yes, agreed. But as we discussed before, there is a difference between crimes against property and anti-social crime. Whilst the organised crime gangs often engage in anti-social acts their motivation is financial profit. And of course they will always have the advantage over the police of not having to follow the rules - they're organised criminals, ffs!
 
Yes, agreed. But as we discussed before, there is a difference between crimes against property and anti-social crime. Whilst the organised crime gangs often engage in anti-social acts their motivation is financial profit. And of course they will always have the advantage over the police of not having to follow the rules - they're organised criminals, ffs!

Organised, callous, vengeful and frequently evil; and I suppose Murder, Kidnap, Torture and Blackmail could be described as anti-social.
 
Organised, callous, vengeful and frequently evil; and I suppose Murder, Kidnap, Torture and Blackmail could be described as anti-social.

The epitome of anti-social. Yet driven by the pursuit of profit and property. Organised crime only exists because it is profitable. If it were not there would be far, far less murder, kidnap, torture and blackmail.
 
I'm not impressed that police paid up for reasons that others have made clear. I'm equally not impressed by police use of these powers in this case because it suggests they may not have a very good focus on what was serious and what was not regarding these individuals.
 
I'm not impressed that police paid up for reasons that others have made clear. I'm equally not impressed by police use of these powers in this case because it suggests they may not have a very good focus on what was serious and what was not regarding these individuals.

I don`t know why police paid up in this case. I thought someone, think it was 3x6 (but unsure) made a post on this thread earlier with some conjecture about rationale - i`d say that conjecture could well have had legs. The post seems to have been removed, or I just cant find it. Lots of possibilities, a stab in the dark might relate to intelligence accessed at the port (now i`ve had to look at the link !) which might have had an impact on the circumstances, yet couldn`t be publicly aired for security reasons. Total guess, could be anything, I dunno.....
 
I don`t know why police paid up in this case. I thought someone, think it was 3x6 (but unsure) made a post on this thread earlier with some conjecture about rationale - i`d say that conjecture could well have had legs. The post seems to have been removed, or I just cant find it. Lots of possibilities, a stab in the dark might relate to intelligence accessed at the port (now i`ve had to look at the link !) which might have had an impact on the circumstances, yet couldn`t be publicly aired for security reasons. Total guess, could be anything, I dunno.....
No, not me, I've given this thread a swerve
 
You're a liar. I saw your post on this thread earlier. You have obviously removed it because it was utter bollocks.
What? I genuinely have no idea what you are talking about, and I'm not joking. I honestly haven't posted on this thread
 
What? I genuinely have no idea what you are talking about, and I'm not joking. I honestly haven't posted on this thread

Maybe it was val but I could have sworn it was you. Somebody definitely did. Genuine apology - I'm sorry - if I this really is a case of mistaken identity.
 
I don`t know why police paid up in this case. I thought someone, think it was 3x6 (but unsure) made a post on this thread earlier with some conjecture about rationale - i`d say that conjecture could well have had legs. The post seems to have been removed, or I just cant find it. Lots of possibilities, a stab in the dark might relate to intelligence accessed at the port (now i`ve had to look at the link !) which might have had an impact on the circumstances, yet couldn`t be publicly aired for security reasons. Total guess, could be anything, I dunno.....

To be clear I don't think the fact they paid up proves fault on their part, it could just be cheaper and/or not worth the aggro of contesting. That was my point. Your point about intelligence is another possibility.
 
Maybe it was val but I could have sworn it was you. Somebody definitely did. Genuine apology - I'm sorry - if I this really is a case of mistaken identity.

Yes, I saw a post too. It mentioned or alluded to a reason for interview as possible intelligence gathering. I`m not sure who it was who posted - but for some reason it was removed. TBH I thought the content of the post was well conceived.