A friend of mine alerted me today to this story, of 34-year-old property developer Sally Cameron:
She was walking from her office in Dundee to her home in the suburb of Broughty Ferry when she was arrested under new anti-terrorist legislation and held for four hours.
She said: “I’ve been walking to work every morning for months and months to keep fit. One day, I was told by a guard on the gate that I couldn’t use the route any more because it was solely a cycle path and he said, if I was caught doing it again, I’d be arrested.
“The next thing I knew, the harbour master had driven up behind me with a megaphone, saying, ‘You’re trespassing, please turn back’. It was totally ridiculous. I started laughing and kept on walking. Cyclists going past were also laughing.
“But then two police cars roared up beside me and cut me off, like a scene from Starsky and Hutch, and officers told me I was being arrested under the Terrorism Act. The harbour master was waffling on and (saying that), because of September 11, I would be arrested and charged.”
My friend was trying to imply that the police were somehow overdoing it here. But this seems like a perfectly reasonable set of circumstances to me. After all, you do not want swarthy looking young men in anoraks hanging around harbour installations. But, you cannot pass a law called the Anti-Swarthy-Looking-Young-Men-In-Anoraks Act. It has to be anyone doing anything suspicious, like, you know, walking about.
But, cyclists are obviously not a problem. Cyclists are good. This is a well known fact. So, whereas public footpaths in the vicinity of harbours are an obvious problem and need to be shut down, there is clearly no need to involve cyclists in this prohibition. Cyclists are, I repeat, good. So, these footpaths can simply stay as they are, but be cycle tracks. But, that means that pedestrians must now be told to steer clear of these ex-footpaths, despite the fact that they still exist.
At which point, since this is the Anti-Terrorism Act that is being imposed here rather than merely some exercise in traffic control, any insubordinate pedestrian who causes trouble, by – I don’t know – laughing when you tell him, or her, about the new arrangements, must clearly be treated as the terrorist that he, or she, may well be. I mean, better safe than sorry. This is the survival of our very way of life that we are talking about, the preservation of our ancient liberties against the forces of barbarism.
I cannot see why the Times Online is making such a fuss about this utterly routine matter.
Depressing, but not new. I’ve been in places in the USA where walking is considered abnormal. There aren’t any sidewalks, so I had to walk down the road. Police would stop and question me. Luckily, when they heared my English accent they’d always smile and leave me alone, but I got stopped more than once for the deviant behaviour of walking a half mile when everyone else drove. And this was years before 9/11.
The extra-depressing thing here is the manner of her arrest. At least in my case they just considered walking to be unusual, suspicious behaviour, rather than illegal per-se.
To be somewhat fair, the point in this case isn’t that cyclists are better, it’s that they are more common on a cycle path, and this is all about people who don’t fit the pattern. They don’t hassle you for spending a long time on parliament square setting up a nice photo of big ben – but try looking at it with a pair of binoculars and see how long it takes a policeman to say ‘good morning’….
Her behaviour might warrant a chat from a policeman but no more. As long as the war on terror is fought by imbeciles who simply follow laws to the maximum extent to enable their own power trips rather than using their brains we won’t win. Treat this lady sensibly and she could be a real asset, if she walks the path every day she will readily spot people who are out of place; she should be regarded as eyes and ears rather than enemy.
Your friend’s primary mistake was in showing insufficient subservience to Very Important Holders of Official Social Authority.
Here’s what we have to figure out: Do we require said Very Important Holders of Official Social Authority to read Kafka as a cautionary tale, or do we forbid their reading Kafka for fear it may give them even more ideas?
One of the oldest tricks in the authoritarian handbook, as written and ever amended by Robespierre, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler. Make everyone feel guity whatever they do and you’ll have total control. Blair is an amateur, but he’s learning fast.
How about a mass civil disobedience campaign featuring hundreds of pedestrians? Have a Right-to-walk campaign!
Pedestrian traffic is a menace to all civilized nations.
Great minds invented machines to replace walking for a reason!
Lucky thing that the war on terrorism is not a battle of wits.
Isn’t it, though?
Well, none of the 7/7 terrorists arrived on a bike. So there we have it.
I had exactly the same experience as J while walking to a shop in Cuptertino, in the San Jose metropolitan area, at about 9pm. The copper – a woman – immediately became all matey when she heard my English accent. I asked whether walking was illegal in the USA and she made a face.
Frogman,
Holders of authority are inclined to regard reading as an instrumental act in the exercise of their authority. They don’t do reflection. Hence, pace Robert Alderson, laws written to be universal are always applied particularistically: the jack-in-office only sees the application that suits him, not the general case. And that is why laws must be narrowly written and narrowly construed.
Look, we have both Tony’s and Charlie’s personal assurances that these laws will only be used in the most dire of circumstances. This being so, it is clear that this woman is an extremely dangerous individual; after all, whom are we supposed to trust? Our own commonsense or our Dear Leaders and their agents?
Brian, from the comments above it becomes obvious that not only cyclists are good, but people with an English accent are good as well. The lady in the story probably had such an accent to begin with, so all she had to do to become good, is to get on a bike. No big deal really.
The lassie got exactly the reaction that she set out to get judging by this.
The nonsensical restriction to cyclists only has been well publicised in Dundee so I don’t think for a minute that she surprised by the reaction to her “trespass”.
It’s all very well to castigate the Harbourmaster for his involvement but given the profile of this silly restriction I don’t think he had much of a choice. I expect he would rather have been doing something that falls more in line with the occupation of Harbourmaster rather than having to act as the reluctant infringer of civil liberties of a willing “martyr”.
The lady was interviewed on the local TV news the other night, and, unless I’m misremembering somehow, she had a Scottish accent. I don’t think an English accent would have done her much good in the part of the country where she was creating such a threat.
The problem here arises only because the government legislative programme isn’t complete.
Once ID cards are made compulsory, the police could have locked her up for months (without charge) using anti-terrorist legisaltion if she hadn’t been carrying her ID card.
You people really shouldn’t criticise until the government’s ‘over-arching integrated strategy delivery programme’ is complete. We’ll all be safe then.
She should get a bike and walk long the cycle path, pushing it.
HJHJ: how true sir!
Of course, we are earnestly awaiting Euan Gray’s words of wisdom on this matter.
What if she went out and bought a skateboard? Seeing as they are already viewed as a social menace maybe they would have sent in the SAS?
Maybe they haven’t heard of the exploding bicycles used in WW2 in France etc?
“she had a Scottish accent. I don’t think an English accent”
So …. you’re saying there’s a difference?
Agreed, this is a pretty silly case.
But – let’s review.
Ms Cameron knew full well that she was not supposed to be there. Leave aside for a minute the silliness of the regulation, she says herself that she was told by a security guard not to do, what she continued to do, or she would be arrested. And – lo and behold – so she was. Her cavilling about how there are ‘no signs’ prohibiting pedestrians rings pretty hollow in light of that. She wants it both ways – to project an image of injured innocence, as though she didn’t know that she was not supposed to be there , while at the same time saying that she knew full well that she wasn’t supposed to be there, but that the rules are silly. As they, no doubt, are.
Ms Cameron is but the latest example of a growing trend which I have been observing of late, to wit: well-to-do, white women who run afoul of the law – sometimes a silly law, sometimes not so silly – who then run to the media with a tale of outrage. ‘How dare they do this to me!’, they cry, as though the law does not apply to well-to-do white women. Whether it is a WTDWW turned away at the US border for immigration irregularities, and made to suffer some minor indignities in the process, or a WTDWW who (apparently) leaks intelligence to the media and then has to suffer the consequences, or a WTDWW busted for trespassing where she has been told not to trespass, it seems that this trend is worldwide, and growing. And, in every case, the WTDWW in question seems to think that the rules (whether or not silly) do not apply to her, and that their enforcement is, in fact, more along the lines of a debating society – that the officers who enforce them are actually there to have her persuade them that the rules do not apply to her, and that they carry in their pockets special dispensations to allow WTDWW to go about their business unmolested.
Such cases are always described with the kinds of histrionics which make for good copy. Police cars never just pull up, they always ‘screech to a stop’. There’s always emphasis on the length of time that the WTDWW spent in custody and the cheerlessness of the experience – as though being arrested ought to be something along the lines of a half-day at the spa.
What causes this trend, I wonder? What is it about WTDWW that creates this sense of super-legal entitlement?
Not arguing for the self-evidently silly regulation in the instand case, you understand, just trying to get a handle on the outcome.
llater,
llamas
llamas,
It is not clear at all which law she broke, or that she broke one at all. I think that her point was that it was over-zealous enforcement of a perceived regulation and showed the tendency of the police to erroneously use anti-terrorist legislation as a catch-all to justify any action that they may wish to take. I suspect that the case was dropped because they knew they’d lose as they had no case.
Does anyone know of any good reason why pedestrian use of this route was recently withdrawn?
Does anyone know why it was appropriate for the police to arrest Ms Careron under prevention of terrorism law, rather than instructing her to desist in wrongful action or arresting her for some offence relating to not being mounted on a bicycle? For example, was she on a bit of land where even cyclists are not allowed?
HJHJ – agreed, but that wasn’t the point I was trying to make.
As far as I can see, the port authority made the regulation – cyclists, but no walkers – based on their understanding of directions from HMG, or perhaps just using their powers as provided for by HMG. Silly? Yes, probably. She chose to defy the regulation, despite knowing full-well (by her own admission) that what she was doing was unlawful – even though, as we can all agree, the law is probably pretty silly. The police were then called to enforce the law which (while we can all agree, it is probably pretty silly) is nonetheless effective. They are told that this is the port authority’s regulation, they must take that assertion at face value, and they have no choice but to enforce it when faced with an obvious violation. The police, when faced with an obvious, blatant, and freely-admitted violation, do not have summary powers to let the offender go because the law appears to be silly – that is a job for the court, if anyone. I suspect that you would certainly not be in favour of allowing any police officer to make personal judgements about which laws he will, or will not, enforce.
If she was in the habit of taking a shortcut across the aprons at Terminal 4 at Heathrow Airport, after being told (politely) not to – would you say that detaining her and possibly charging her with trespass would be ‘overzealous enforcement’?
All that being said – that wasn’t my point. I was more interested in the apparent trend among WTDWW to consider themselves above any law that inconveniences them, and this appeared to me to be another example of the trend, complete with all the usual histrionic trappings. Discuss.
llater,
llamas
HJHJ,
On the contrary, as I mentioned in my earlier comment this daft situation has quite a high profile in Dundee and has been an issue for quite some time. The path in question runs close to the port of Dundee and due to some blanket “anti-terrorist” type legislation, pedestrians are not allowed along the path. A spot of smoke & mirrors somewere in an office means that cyclists are allowed (presumably as long as they hand in their RPGs before crossing into the Port area).
I don’t think that there wasn’t a case as such, it was about as material a breach as you could ask for. I suspect that the case was dropped because it would be deemed “not in the public interest” i.e. highlight a stupid and apparently unenforceable law.
Some anti-terrorism/security statute from our beloved leaders, I shall have to have a rake about the interweb and see if I can find out full details.
I believe that an even more farcical situation was narrowly avoided for people living in Footdee. This is a small village which lies within Aberdeen and is close to Aberdeen harbour. The legislation was going to be enacted despite it would effectively ban people from accessing their own homes. There was remarkably little leeway given initially until someone up on high took some jobsworth beaurocrat to one side and delivered a swift slap to the back of the head &/or some benevolent advice and lo, situation resolved. Once I find some links to flesh these out I shall post them.
My point was that she might have clearly broken the regulations, but this is not necessarily the same as breaking a law. We wouldn’t know for sure whether the regulation is lawful unless it is tested in court.
This is a typical half measures c*ck up. Either the area is deemed particularly terrorist sensitive and therefore out of bounds to the public. That includes cyclists. Or, the public have a right of way, in which case you cannot justifiably differentiate between cyclists and pedestrians.
… but people with an English accent are good as well. The lady in the story probably had such an accent to begin with… Dundee’s in Scotland! People from Scotland don’t have (I almost typed hae) English accents. They have Scottish accents. As someone said above, having an English accent will not get you any favours in Scotland!!
HJHJ wrote:
‘My point was that she might have clearly broken the regulations, but this is not necessarily the same as breaking a law. We wouldn’t know for sure whether the regulation is lawful unless it is tested in court.’
My point in a nutshell. But Ms Cameron is not doing that. If she had said, soberly enough, ‘this regulation is silly, I am going to break it, get myself arrested and go to court as a Test Case, and we’ll see whether it stands up or not’, that would fair enough.
But no. The whole tone of her story is along a different line – more along the lines of ‘How Dare They Arrest Me! ME! And Take Me Into Custody! ME! I spent Hours – HOURS! – at the Police Station! The Very Idea! They Ruined My Whole Day! I Was Just Keeping Fit! And then they sent me a Nasty Letter! Those Ruffians!’
It’s all about her. And that was the point I was trying to explore – how it is (it would seem) that more and more WTDWW are going through life as though they don’t have to comply with rules they don’t like, and bursting into injured outrage when their ideas of what they do and don’t have to do bump up against reality and the not-always-pleasant consequences that follow.
llater,
llamas
llamas, I don’t think it’s about WTDWW. I think it’s about everyone but.
My anecdotal recollection is that lot’s of us used to challange absurd laws, absurdly enforced. Now, WTDWW are the only class of citizen left with the chutzpah to try. But at this rate, they will soon be cured and then there will be no one left who will get in the way of good governance.
Midwesterner wrote:
I can’t agree with you there I’m afraid. The lady in question doesn’t do her case any favours with the rather breathy, histrionic tone of her complaints. I still think it is possible to challenge absurdities with good grace rather than resorting to chucking one’s toys out the pram. People reading the report (especially the Dundee Courier version) and think, not entirely without justification, that she got her come-uppance. In my view her manner of protest overshadowed the much more important issue of the contrary nature of this law/regulation.
Midwsterener: “Now, WTDWW are the only class of citizen left with the chutzpah to try. But at this rate, they will soon be cured and then there will be no one left who will get in the way of good governance.” No, they will not be cured, not this WTDWW, damn it!
Got to go now, need to pay my TV license fee, before it’s too late.
You’re missing my point. It’s not that she’s a high minded activist, seeking a higher good. Far from it. It that this sort of conduct did not used to be the exclusive domain of WTDWW.
I’m recalling when I was growing up. Any number of similar silly regulations. We mostly ignored them. The police didn’t used to have the time, energy, and public acceptance to enforce them. When people were persec…. er, prosecuted for infractions, they whined and huffed then, too. Now we have all become very German in our adherence to the letter of the regulation. Things have changed. That’s all.
I am trying really hard to see what there might be in support of the police and harbour authorities’ actions that can be justified in the circumstances. However, in my mind, I have uppermost the same question as JayN: “Either the area is deemed particularly terrorist sensitive and therefore out of bounds to the public. That includes cyclists. Or, the public have a right of way, in which case you cannot justifiably differentiate between cyclists and pedestrians.”
The presence of Inchbrackie, presumably a local to Dundee, is useful to us all, so thanks to him (assumed) for being our man-on-the-spot.
Is there any further information on whether Ms Cameron has truly been using this route to/from work for months, or are the circumstances more contrived than her (perhaps reasonable) annoyance at the restriction against pedestrians on her personal stamping ground?
What happens if one gets a puncture while cycling along?
Maybe they think Islamofascists don’t ride bikes.
More initials to learn! Someone, what does WTDWW mean, please? Presumably the first word is White.
Well, it didn’t take me very long the other day to realise that while London taxi drivers generally give way to pedestrians, New York taxi drivers don’t.
Of course, in my rented SUV I have been acquiring the important American “run down pedestrians” skills quite quickly.
llamas coined the term.
His post at 12:50PM explains it.
Midwesterner – Thank you. I missed that post. When I logged on, I must have scrolled down too far. I have noticed the WTDWW syndrome for years – actually, since I was a child – although I thought it was a purely British phenomenon (and then, of course, along came Cindy Moonbat demanding a personal talk with the president and an end to our presence in Iraq on her say so). I thought it had something to do with the WTDWW viewing herself as intellectually and materially superior. As Llamas notes, she thinks she is in a position to negotiate the rules that apply to the little people. She does this by temporary co-opting the law enforcer into the “people like us” club – patronising him (and in fewer instances, her) and trying to manipulate him into becoming her ally. She will sympathise with him about the people who make the rules, and with the cloddishness of his higher-ups. They are entertaining to watch, not least because they believe that “people like us” are utterly desirable and everyone would want to be one.
The reason I say that they don’t try this on women so often is, women are much harder cases and see right through other women with x-ray vision. Also, they’re often more agile verbally than men in a similar situation and will come back with a put-down the WTDWW doesn’t want to risk. (And men are easier because most of them feel uneasy about appearing to bully a woman.)
This is some BS. Being an American, I can agree with some of this. Being a 20 year old white male labels me as a “slacker” and a “Problem” with just my presence. I mean, there are places here in the US that are obviously restricted to certain people. Like military bases, which have large fences, armed guards, not to mention devastating firepower just a phonecall away. But if they don’t want people to do something, they need to let them know. People might be pretty smart, but they aren’t clairevoyant, not matter how hard they try. In fact, most people are pretty stupid if you ask me. But you didn’t ask, I just told you.
Has this moved from a counter-terrorism issue and moved toward something else. I agree with the fact that women, when subjected to the same treatment that men get, are outraged. It’s called equality, which means that everything, and I mean everything, is equal. Try it out sometime.
snub999 – No, we are talking about a particular type/social class/mindset of woman who feels she has a right to elevated treatment (not just over men; anyone). This has nothing to do with feminism.
Eric Gibbs – But if they don’t want people to do something, they need to let them know. People might be pretty smart, but they aren’t clairevoyant, not matter how hard they try. Did you read the link?
There does seem a divergence from the central issue: intentional disobedience of laws in a way that makes them and those who enforce them look like utter, total fools, is one of our most important weapons as libertarians.
I am always happy to hear stories like this. If your W.. whatever are able to create more damage to the ‘enemy’, then I am all for it. Have at the B******s lasses!
Right on, Dale! Here in the States, there’s a new affront to a libertarian lifestyle. Some real estate agents are using hidden cameras to spy on homeshoppers looking at open houses. why? to crack down on the trend of ‘house humping’ – where couples like to sneak some quick sex while looking at the houses. I say, if you want someone to live in the damn place for 30 years, you should expect them to try it out – not spy on them! Am I right?
What I am finding disconcerting in the comments is that no-one seems to have picked up on the claim that the lady in question was “trespassing” …
It is (or at least *used* to be) a major difference between Scots Law and English/Welsh Law that to commit trespass in England merely required being in the presence of a No Trespassing sign, whereas, In Scotland, to commit the offence of Trespass, one had to commit some other offence at the same time …
In addition, in Scots Law, it used to take 21 YEARS to extinguish a Right of Way – and, as I understand it, in 21 years, one could establish a Right of Way even over otherwise-private property …
Please tell me that Scots Law hasn’t lost that very important difference !
There does seem a divergence from the central issue: intentional disobedience of laws in a way that makes them and those who enforce them look like utter, total fools, is one of our most important weapons as libertarians.
Quite right. Civil disobedience is the proper response to an asinine law. My only disappointment is that it happens rather less frequently as I would hope for, both there and here.
rosignol wrote:
‘Quite right. Civil disobedience is the proper response to an asinine law. My only disappointment is that it happens rather less frequently as I would hope for, both there and here. ‘
I absolutely agree. But that’s not what happened here. Civil disobedience implies taking the consequences in order to put right this sort of silliness. As I said above, if Ms Cameron had said ‘this is silly, and I’m out to change it by getting arrested, going to court and getting this silly regulation overturned’, or if she had said ‘I am retaining counsel to challenge this silly regulation’, I would be all for it. But that’s not what she did. She broke the rule – silly though it is – and is now whining and snivelling because she doesn’t like the consequences. She considers herself above such mundane contributions to the social contract, and compounds her arrogance by making fun of those who have no choice but to enforce it. It’s all about her. It was that phenomenon – it’s all about her – that I was commenting on, and if I took the thread in a bad direction, then I apologize.
The mass-trespassers who walked over Kinder Scout to assert their common-law rights of way took the consequences of what they did and used them to re-establish their ancient rights. They didn’t sit around whining and snivelling about how they were inconvenienced.
llater,
llamas
Isn’t it obvious that the problem here was that the path was owned by the government? If it had been a private path, this problem would never have cropped up. Use of the footpath would be open to all those who could afford to pay.
Tanby, ownership isn’t the issue here. The only government involvement seems to have been in creating the legislation that has lead to this farce. The issue is one of access and how, given that access is restricted on a basis of port security, pedestrians have been deemed a security risk whilst cyclists have not! Hence the detention/arrest under Anti-Terrorism Legislation (that pesky Government again).
This isn’t a “silly” regulation, it is an insane piece of nonesense,a bicycle would make a superb bomb.Expect a spate of suicide cyclists from now on.
True, the VC used to leave bicycle bombs in Saigon. They couldn’t afford cars I suppose.
This site is really good. I’ve link to this piece.