As has been pointed out before, we are not edging closer to be becoming a police state in the UK, we already are one.
Two effigies of Scotland’s First Minister Alex Salmond have been withdrawn from bonfire celebrations in an English town after a storm of protest on social media. Thousands of people attended the bonfire celebrations in the East Sussex town of Lewes. Sussex Police said the effigies of Mr Salmond would not now be set alight (…) Just before 21:00 on Wednesday, Sussex Police tweeted: “For those enquiring we have been advised that there won’t be any burning of the Alex Salmond effigies this evening in Lewes. It is understood three effigies – two Alex Salmonds and one Nessie – were confiscated and removed”
I would be curious to know what legal grounds were invoked to confiscate these items of private property that were being used for political expression.
UPDATE: The BBC article has been changed and now no longer contains the following section which I cut and pasted from the original article:
“Just before 21:00 on Wednesday, Sussex Police tweeted: “For those enquiring we have been advised that there won’t be any burning of the Alex Salmond effigies this evening in Lewes. It is understood three effigies – two Alex Salmonds and one Nessie – were confiscated and removed”.
And indeed I do not see that on the Sussex Police twitter either. Removed? Interesting.
UPDATE 2: Ah, this makes me proud to be English 😀
C’mon it’s getting cold….. Nice heating, comfy chair, coffee and biscuits at the police station.
But on balance – just BS on a stick
My God, The PC police are getting more and more retarded. If it had been a festival of Muslims raping underage white girls, they wouldn’t have done anything…
What would inspector Knacker have made of this?
“with the burning of large bonfires, a large effigy of the pope—his belly filled with live cats “who squalled most hideously as soon as they felt the fire”
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fawkes_Night
Hmmh, I’m not sure I agree. It seems that people protested publicly and the organization decided to withdraw it because it upset people. That might be an example of people being overly sensitive (and Salmond to his credit seemed to joke that he was “more concerned about Nessie”), or perhaps even the newest greatest offense of all — bullying — however it seems a perfectly legitimate private transaction took place.
The only concern I have is with the word “confiscated” in the above quote, which doesn’t seem to come from the linked article. That word seems more in line with the police forcing the issue, but it doesn’t seem to line up with what the linked article said — which is to say, the super sensitive complained loudly, and the timid organization complied with the complaints by their own free will.
Which is to say it doesn’t sound like a freedom of expression thing to me. There is a huge difference between the cops confiscating my megaphone because they didn’t like what I say and you kicking me out of your house because you don’t like what I say. Or perhaps parallel to this case, me trying to delete my comment Samizdata because everyone hated it, and it was ruining my reputation.
At least in Britain you have nothing like the Asset-forfeiture laws that American cops can use whenever the Treasury runs low. Shouldn’t they rebel on that alone? From the next DoI- “Yeah, Washington DC have passed laws on the presumption of guilt before trial, and with no guarantee of a return of assets seized even after exoneration in a due court of law.”
It was a cut and paste from the article. Which means the BBC article has been changed. My article is entirely about the word “confiscated“.
Well, Article 10 of the Human Rights Act says freedom of expression, “since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”
So take your pick. It’s undemocratic to burn effigies of politicians; burning effigies are a threat to public safety; burning an effigy of a popular politician might lead to disorder or crime; the smoke might damage people’s health; burning effigies is immoral; having an effigy of you burnt is damaging to your reputation; or it could even be argued that burning effigies of men in positions of authority presents a threat to the authority of the judiciary.
For sure the word “confiscated” makes a big difference, in fact it turns it on its head. However, the article did say this:
“In the light of the responses received to our tableau idea this year we [the bonfire society] have made the decision to withdraw it from our celebrations.”
Like I say, it sounds like bullying, but not censorship. The cops said this, apparently:
“Whilst we accept there is a long tradition of creating effigies of high-profile individuals in politics, sport, the media, etc, a complaint has nevertheless been received and will be investigated.”
Which sounds kind of sinister, but I think the cops say that about everything, it just oozes Old Bill speak.
I suspect that the “confiscated” thing was a mistake in the original, but I could be wrong. As a native Scot let me say for the record that I am shocked, Shocked, SHOCKED that the wonderful member of Scottish society was to be so insulted by burning in effigy. How dare they insult Nessie that way? Damn Sassanachs.
I’m going to burn an enormous cock. By which I mean a tiny one. By which I mean Nick Clegg.
I wonder if the “storm of protest” was any such thing, or was it the overheated ravings of a small number of overactive twits. (Twit is the correct term for someone who uses Twitter, isn’t it?)
Precisely, they say that about everything, the police response should have been:
‘What offence under law do you suggest has been, or is about to be committed? Please state the relevant Act or Common Law offence. If it appears to us that you are making an ill-founded complaint, and on the face of it you appear to be so doing, you may face prosecution for causing wasteful employment of police time.
The word “confiscated” was used.
The NewsDiffs site is great. It is “trying to solve the problem of archiving news in the constantly evolving world of online journalism.”
http://newsdiffs.org/
Here you can see a history of the story edits:
http://newsdiffs.org/article-history/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29921797
And here you can see where the phrase using “confiscated” was removed.
http://newsdiffs.org/diff/741821/741993/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29921797
These days it’s a wonder Guy Fawkes is even legal, celebrating as it does the repression of a Catholic plot.
What Mr. Ed said.
Agreed Mr Ed – however there are plenty of (new) offences that could be trotted out.
For example refuse to bake a cake with a political message you do not approve? Refuse to be a SLAVE?
That is an offense (civil so far – it will be criminal soon) – there is a bakery in Country Antrim that is being taken to court (by the some taxpayer funded “Equality” body) for refusing to bake a “Support Gay Marriage” cake right now.
Perry is correct – but he does not go far enough.
Not only is freedom of speech under attack in this land (as the actions in Sussex show), but one is compelled to support various opinions.
Not only would someone not be allowed to display a “……. will go to Hell” cake, but they must bake a cake that celebrates the cause they oppose.
People are not just forbidden to express their opinions – they must actively work for opinions they hate (it is their duty to further the “equality” agenda).
In short – we are bit-by-bit becoming slaves.
Much of the pressure bluebottles can bring comes from a few simple sources
1–Remove their ZaNuLab granted power to arrest for any reason. In days gone by they could only arrest for a certain number of reasons. Which means stuff like this would make them think twice about a wrongful arrest lawsuit.
2-The removal of due process by that other ZaNuLab instrument ASBOs. No clear charge is needed with ASBOs just a willing Beak to do the dirty work. They are moving towards what the were truly intended for in the form of BluLab hag Theresa May’s Extreme Control Orders. Another slug– the USA’s own dear Eric Holder summed up the real purpose of ASBOs in his contention that “due process of Law” (I know the context is American but it applies here) means clerical process. That is to say “due process” no longer means you have rights that the state cannot over step–it means they can do anything they like to you so long as the paperwork has been filled out correctly. ASBOs and their offspring must go.
3-The precise drafting of law. Law is being made in much more vague terms so that serious offences can be cobbled up from minor actions. This is a tactic of the Federal Tyranny but there is plenty of scope for its use over here. Along with the EU trick of mini-“enabling act” clauses in Bills. Once a law is passed these enable the scope of the law to be massively expanded without any further reference to anyone.
These things along with admin law–debated and voted on by no one are what enable the rozzers to throw their weight about. Scrap the above and the bluebottles can be put back on a chain.
It looks like the good people of Lewis weren’t so easily frightened and burned at least one of them anyway…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29929438
I particuarly like the quote in the article from unamed twitter user “Can you imagine the uproar amongst Better Together campaigners had Yes supporters burned an effigy of David Cameron?” I think I can, but I don’t think it’d be quite the uproar that the easily offended porridge wog quoted expects. I don’t understand the cult of personality that seems to have grown up around Salmond and, to a lesser extent, Farage; the only sensible reaction to a political leader, even one with whom you largly agree , is polite contempt & indifference and if you are going to excited about one of them chucking their effigy on a fire seems the right way to go about it….
The only thing that irks is the wheedling apologies woven into the statements of the various bonfire organizations – ‘we don’t wish to offend, it was never our intention, we are inclusive and just general luvvies all round.’
I would love to see one of these organizations step up and say
‘ . . . .of COURSE we are trying to offend! Satire, and satirical representations of others, are at the core of robust free speech and have been since Hogarth picked up his pen – and long before that. I’ll wager that there are graffiti on the walls of Pompeii that state that Certificatix is a fat tax-eater who strangles puppies for fun. And if you don’t like it, or if it offends you – Bite Me! Our right to make fun of you, or anyone else we please, is far more important than your delicate snowflake inability to tolerate being offended. Oh – and Bite Me. Again.’
But it will never happen. The whole concept of free speech has been lost in the UK, and it will never be recovered. You let it get taken away form you by degrees, so that now one phone call claiming offense is all it takes to suppress it totally.
Free speech that is (self)-limited to only those things that nobody finds offensive is no free speech at all – and at the same time, incredibly dangerous for the liberties of the individual.
llater,
llamas
Mr Salmond responded to the initial tweet by telling BBC Scotland he was “used to insults from Tories in East Sussex”.
He is? Really? Sussex is a bugger of a long way from Scotland. How does he know it’s just Tories? Alistair Darling led the no campaign.
RAB, now you’ve made me dig up the lyrics of “Sussex by the Sea“, first two verses.
This article shows some memorable effigies in Lewes from the past few years, Assad, the Pope, Gadhaffi, Blair and Bush.
There was a very interesting article in Harper’s, years ago, about using imaging techniques to bring out graffiti painted on walls of ancient buildings. And, yes, that’s exactly the sort of thing that was there. Possibly even with grammatical errors in latin.
Yes, enough of this ‘effigy’ nonsense. Let’s start burning actual politicians and/or government functionaries, pour encourager les autres.
I’d be happy to donate a few from across the Pond, just to get the ball rolling. (Did I say ‘few’? I meant, hundreds.)
> But it will never happen. The whole concept of free speech has been lost in the UK, and it will never be recovered.
I haven’t lived in Britain for a long time, so I’ll assume you are correct. But I did want to get back to my original point — there is a gigantic difference between people bitching, whining, even bullying others into shutting up, and the coppers coming to cart you away or confiscate your stuff. I totally get Perry’s point that the whole nature of the article changed with the removal of that word “confiscated.”
However, bitching, whining, bullying, mocking, humiliating, insulting, shouting down to the point of getting someone to shut the fuck up are absolutely essential components of free speech. Some types of free speech are horrible (though not the example which I personally thought was kind of funny, the effigies were works of art.) For example, the classic case here in the USA is the Westboro Baptist church who, regularly protest at the funerals of the soldiers loudly celebrating, proclaiming that the soldier death was a good thing and a righteous judgement of god on all us sodomites. These people should be allowed to spout their villainous crap, but decent people need to respond: to bitch, whine, complain, insult, mock, and question their parentage. Or rather they need to answer them loudly and viciously but in a manner that is respectful of the funeral.
FWIW, there is also a balance, sometimes saying nothing is the best response, since these people are publicity whores, and giving them no attention is often the worst thing you can do to them.
“How does he know it’s just Tories?”
You know the Left’s Standard Argument: “right-wingers” are evil, all enemies are evil, all enemies are “right-wing”; start at the beginning and go round in circles. The entire two-year referendum campaign basically amounted to each side calling the other a bunch of Tories, while the real ones looked on in bemusement.
“Ah, this makes me proud to be English”
Makes me proud still to be British. Good on you, Lewes!
I liked llamas’ suggested riposte. Would that we were occasionally treated to some of that sort of thing, instead of the usual sniveling about “not wanting to offend”. Some people deserve to be offended, good and hard.
Mr. Salmond is probably enjoying this whole flap. It gets his name into the press again, and affirms his continued relevance.
As far as I am aware no one has ever attempted to burn my effigy. Which, when you think about it, would be a pretty sad thing to have engraved on one’s tombstone.
Nick M @ November 6, 2014 at 1:31 am: I’m going to burn an enormous cock. By which I mean a tiny one. By which I mean Nick Clegg.
Don’t you mean “cock-up“? In which case Clegg is definitely enormous.
The two Putin effigies, one of him in a mankini and another with him on a crashing Malaysian airliner, went relatively unremarked.
This festival is just the sort of thing that shows that the spirit of ridiculing power lives on, I shall endeavour to attend next year, but a new government may get round to banning it, or subtly regulating it out of existence.
Meanwhile, other police forces in the UK, not having bonfires to investigate, have taken to spraying 4 year olds with ‘hot chilli’ spray and ejecting a gun cartridge in the face of a 7 year old girl.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-29944507
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29943441
In a tweet sent at about 21:00 on Wednesday evening, Sussex Police said: “For those enquiring we have been advised that there won’t be any burning of the Alex Salmond effigies this evening in Lewes.”
Speaking after it emerged the effigy had been blown up, the force’s Supt Laurence Taylor said: “We acknowledge that concerns have been raised and are trying to establish whether or not any crime may have been committed.”
A spokeswoman for the force added: “Officers spoke to the bonfire societies on the night to make them aware of the concerns being raised about the effigies of the Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond..”
Is this the first of April?
Or was or was Supt Laurence Taylor speaking with his tongue firmly in his cheek?
Or might an effigy of Mr Taylor feature in next year’s celebrations?
Or will a bill have been rushed through Parliament early next year by the new Labour / SNP government to ensure that this sort of thing never happens again?
“the new Labour / SNP government”
Now, there’s a frightening thought. But they hate each other too much. You’d be more likely to get a Tory/LibDem…
Oh, wait…
In (very) muted defense of Mr. Holder, the notion that any official process is ‘due’ process unless a court has declared it otherwise has been around in America for a very long time.
John M, very interesting:
What sort of police is that, looking at an incident to see if a crime has been committed? Here’s a clue.
Has any property been destroyed or damaged without permission of the owner? No, the property burned was intended to be destroyed.
Has any person been injured against their will? No.
Roll out the barrel, give it a good scrape….
Mr Salmond is Scottish, therefore* burning him in effigy is racially-aggravated conduct, e.g:
But look at this bit of the guidance:
* in the mind of a PC Plod, perchance.
This is a feeble country. In Pakistan you can burn real living Christians, and nobody turns a hair. Pathetic Britain!
Mr Ed, Something I find a little more worrying about those stories: I am currently vacationing in England (have lived abroad for the past 14 years) and one of the things that really stands out is not so much the speed cameras but the overwhelming number of speed camera signs
The whole “We’re keeping an eye on you, sonny” thing is way out of hand. England is truly a police state. I won’t be buried here.
They are certainly protected by the right of free speech. But essential to free speech? No, I don’t think so. That seems a bit like arguing that war is essential to peace — which it is once someone decides to be the initiator of force, but that doesn’t justify the initiation of force. Likewise, my right to use forms of speech that are designed to intimidate, and your right to reply in kind, do not justify my use of such speech in the first place.
Since when is Alex Salmond a member of a different race ? Is he not human ? Are each of the nations constituting the UK of GB & NI now separate “races” ? Surely, we’re all mongrels. Racist stuff and nonsense.