| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| Anti-war campaigners lose landmark case |
| 2004-12-08 |
| Police did act lawfully when they prevented three coachloads of protesters attending an anti-war demonstration at an RAF base, the Court of Appeal has said. The judges dismissed an appeal brought by a group of the coach passengers who said they should not have been turned away from last year's demonstration against the war in Iraq at RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire. Instead Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice, sitting with Lords Justices Clarke and Rix, upheld a previous ruling. They also upheld an earlier ruling that Gloucestershire Police had acted unlawfully and breached the protesters' human rights by detaining them in their coaches on their journey back to London. Lord Woolf said police had lawfully turned the protesters away but their action afterwards was "disproportionate". He pointed out the passengers were "virtually prisoners" on the coaches for the two-and-a-half hour trip and were unable to leave even to relieve themselves. After today's ruling, demonstrator Jane Laporte, from Tottenham in north London, said: "I think we are just disappointed that the court hasn't upheld our right to protest, which we consider a fundamental right of democracy." Fairford Coach Action - a group of more than 80 passengers who decided to pursue the case against police actions on March 22 last year - say they are prepared to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights. Afterwards, solicitor John Halford, who acted for Ms Laporte and many of the other protesters, said: "If the police really have this power, it begs the question whether there is a right to protest at all." Craig Mackey, assistant chief constable of Gloucestershire Police, defended the actions of his officers and insisted the force's response to the situation had been "proportionate". |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #3 a whole 2 hours...big whoop |
| Posted by: Uleque Hupavise4887 2004-12-08 9:43:06 PM |
| #2 I would have thought they'd be in those plush excursion busses that have a small water closet in the back, like the Greyhound busses here in the States, rather than a bare bones city bus. If so, then the only issue is not being able to walk around and stretch their legs. It is also not clear from the article whether the police actually escorted the busses all the way back to London to ensure that nobody exited the bus along the way, even to relieve himself. For that matter, was anyone in such need that he begged to be allowed to relieve himself, but was denied? This whole case sounds a bit flimsy to me. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2004-12-08 6:20:18 PM |
| #1 "were unable to leave even to relieve themselves" These are the sort who piss themselves over everything anyway, so who cares? Yeah, sue. Hangnail? Sue. Bad hair day? Sue. Found out to be wankers without a clue? Sue. The UK needs to hold a weenie roast, just like the US... |
| Posted by: .com 2004-12-08 2:14:25 PM |