European court says 'kettling' tactics in 2001 lawful

[dipsydoodle]

Source: BBC News

"Kettling" tactics used by the Metropolitan police to contain crowds in 2001 were lawful, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled.

The controversial method was used during anti-globalisation demonstrations in London on 1 May 2001.

Police blocked off Oxford Circus and corralled those inside for seven hours.

The court said there had been no violation of Article 5 - the right to liberty and security - of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17378700

[midnight]

1. The three men who had nothing to do with the anti-glob. rally

took this to court to say otherwise....

[freshwest]

2. I disagree, the practice is dangerous.

[Mojorabbit]

3. This is an awful decision. nt

[cstanleytech]

4. How so?

Assuming its done for for a limited period and only a limited period of time in order for people to calm down and get control of themselves in situations like this why is it an awful decision?
Is it not better that the police did this say rather than use other things like tear gas,night sticks, rubber bullets........or real bullets even?

[JDPriestly]

5. Under our Constitution, there are to be no laws abridging the right to free speech or assembly.

European law may be different on this issue.

Kettling is the very definition of abridging.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/

I know that laws abridging speech -- "regulating" speech are what they call it, have been approved by the Supreme Court. But the Supreme Court has had to correct itself quite a number of times. Remember Dred Scott?

[Kelvin Mace]

6. I hate to be the bearer of bad news...

but the Constitution is not now, and has not been for some time, the law of the land.

The law of the land is what the Justice Department or a judge decides it is.

Amendments 1, and 4-8 of the Bill of Rights are no longer "operational" in this country.

And "kettling" is practiced here as well, and has been used against occupy groups.

Our government is removing all peaceful means of dissent with the deliberate intent of provoking more violence in order to justify more suppression.

[cstanleytech]

7. We arent discussing a ruling here in the US however if we were your neglecting a key

part which is the "people peaceably to assemble" part.

[saras]

8. It's better than if they raped everyone with a chainsaw - so what?

The POINT is that people who have nothing to do with the protest get locked up for a whole day, for nothing except existing on the wrong day.

It's just a protest, for chrissakes. Everybody else in the world isn't obligated to drop everything for it - if they were, then protests would always work.

So I'd say the rights of the non-participants are a lot more important than a relatively minor matter of convenience for overly-armed, ill-trained officers.

[cstanleytech]

9. Have you considered starting a thread to ask if rape by chainsaw is legal in the UK?

Offhand of course I am going to say such a thing is illegal but hey I could be wrong.