ANARCHY IN THE UK

Anarchy for the U.K

It’s coming sometime and maybe

I give a wrong time, stop a traffic line

Those of us of a certain vintage will remember the classic from the Sex Pistols. (Scary to think it is 45 years ago next month -26 November 1976- since it was released)

The lyrics, an extract of which I quote above are rather apt when thinking of the current protests by the Insulate Britain group, especially the bit about stopping a traffic line.

Now, before I go any further, I should make it clear that I am not expressing a view as to whether the cause Insulate Britain are in favour of is a cause I support or not. This article is about the tactics used and the hypocrisy of these tactics.

This group and their supporters seem to think they are justified in breaking the law because they believe in the cause they are protesting about. Interestingly you will note they are not breaking laws they believe are unjust or unfair as the Civil Rights movement in the USA did especially in the 1950s/ 1960s. They are simply choosing to break whatever laws they like with the intention to cause maximum disruption to people going about their normal lives whether those people agree with the Insulate Britain cause or not.

Is this not what anarchy is? Ignoring laws and breaking the law to suit your purpose? Whether we like it or not, we live in a society which operates according to rules and norms.

I wonder what those supporting Insulate Britain would say if someone targeted their homes/ possessions and burgled their property claiming they (the burglar/ thief) passionately believed they should have more possessions and were therefore justified in taking the possessions of the protestors?

I’m quite sure those Insulate Britain protestors would be demanding the law of the land be upheld and the burglars/ thieves be prosecuted as their actions were against the law.

Can anyone see any hypocrisy in this?

How about direct action? The Insulate Britain protestors argue that they are justified in taking action that breaks the law because:

I) They passionately believe in their cause

ii) The situation is so serious it justifies direct action

Well, I am sure the Insulate Britain protestors will be equally happy that members of the public take direct and forceful action to remove or restrain the protestors, after all:

I) The motorists believe in their cause e.g., to go to work, take children to school or to go to hospital etc etc

ii) The situation is so serious it justifies direct action as the roads are being blocked and the obstruction in the road needs to be removed.

I am not so sure that any protestor forcefully removed from the road would refuse to appear as a witness in an assault trial against anyone who removed them from the road.

Response To Insulate Britain

Now let’s turn to the actions of the authorities in response to this group. Firstly, as I referenced in an earlier post, their actions could be seen to be acts of terrorism. The CPS definition of terrorism is:

Terrorism is the use or threat of action, both in and outside of the UK, designed to influence any international government organisation or to intimidate the public.  It must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial, or ideological cause.

On that definition, you might expect tough and swift action to be taken against Insulate Britain, but to date it’s been a rather muted response.

In the early days, the police were seemingly acting to protect the protestors and to prevent the public clearing the roads.

Contrast this behaviour to the way police act when football fans cause disruption. If football fans are causing obstructions, they are rapidly and often forcefully removed, arrested, and often charged with offences. If bailed they face very restrictive bail conditions.

In the early stages, the police were not arresting the protestors and allowing them to break the law at will.

Even when that changed, and the police did start to arrest people, they were either releasing under investigation or without bail conditions, despite the protestors avowed intent to return to the scene of the protests and carry-on law breaking.

The police seem to think they are limited to charging relatively minor non-imprisonable offences and seem to have ruled out Conspiracy charges from the outset. Its obviously just chance that the same group of people choose totally independently to turn up at the same sites at the same time!
Its almost as if the police seem to be running scared of tackling those breaking the law in these protests. The police will blame the CPS and vice versa. Whenever there is seen to be a real problem, the CPS and Police work together to tackle the response – e.g., major outbreaks of public disorder or football violence.

Injunctions

The next response to the protests was to use the civil law to obtain injunctions against the protestors. This would mean anyone breaking an injunction could be dealt with for contempt of court and face a penalty of up to 5 years imprisonment and an unlimited fine.

The seeking of injunctions was a positive step towards dealing with the law breaking and deliberate disruption to innocent people. However, the government lawyers sought injunctions that only prevented Insulate Britain blocking the M25, so what did Insulate Britain do? Yes, you’ve guessed, they moved to disrupt other locations.

Government lawyers went back to court and sought injunctions for these new locations, so the protestors blockaded another part of the transport network.

You may well ask why the government never sought injunctions to prevent Insulate Britain from blocking or obstructing any part of the UK transport network.

This is a question that I do not know the answer to either. It may well be that the government lawyers thought that the court would not grant such a wide injunction. However, it must be considered that there is no lawful reason for Insulate Britain to obstruct the transport network. That is not to say that they should not be protesting. They have a right to protest they do not however have a right to obstruct the transport network.

Now that injunctions have been granted and quite clearly Insulate Britain members have shown they have no intention of complying with those injunctions what enforcement action has been taken? To date it seems very little has been done.

You might therefore wonder what was the point of going to court and getting these injunctions if the powers are not being used. Those breaching the injunction should have been summoned to appear before the High Court at a very short notice and dealt with swiftly.

Allowing the matter to drag on for months it is not justice and by the time it comes to the court dealing with the breaches of the injunctions, the disruption caused will have been forgotten and no doubt the High Court will grant will give very little in the way of punishment, despite the clear and wilful breaches of the injunctions.

Now contrast this rather ineffective action against deliberate criminal actions with the way the police deal with football supporters, or those rioting. Where we had people creating disturbance on the streets they were dealt with swiftly. During the riots in 2012 substantial prison sentences were given for those offences because the Police, Prosecution and the Courts worked together to get people before the Courts swiftly.

It seems that it is a very different situation for the Insulate Britain lawbreakers. They seem to get sympathy not punishment. Football hooligans believe in their cause as much as the Insulate Britain protestors do.
Whether you believe in your cause or not is irrelevant to the breach of a court injunction. The question to be asked is have the accused breached the injunction after knowing of it.

Why Not a Bit of Anarchy