According to Tim Stanley (Daily Telegraph, 12 August): “District Judge Francis Rafferty said that anybody present at a riot can be remanded in custody, even if they were only a `curious observer’.
This leaves me (a journalist by training) wondering whether this means that, for example, someone such as Brendan Westbridge would be in trouble in being present at the scene such as this, if only as a “curious observer” who chose to share his observations on social media, a blog, etc. In the US, we have seen the case of the remarkably brave Andy Ngo, who covered the actions in places such as Seattle and Portland of Antifa, for example. He covered events that the MSM was less willing to cover, for various reasons.
The term “curious observer” is frighteningly ambiguous. For a start, what about the intent of the observer and the purpose of such action? Does this mean that a person who is walking nearby and goes towards a scene of commotion out of curiosity or concern for his neighbourhood counts as a “curious observer” as far as this judge is concerned? Does this mean that the instruction “nothing to see here, please move along” takes on added menace? Does it mean having eyes and ears is now potentially a criminal offence?
Suppose there were to be a disorderly and riotous gathering of, say, pro-Hamas demonstrators in a street, holding up placards calling for the extinction of the state of Israel (“from the river to the sea” etc). Imagine, say, you are a Jew, and understandably worried for your safety. Are you therefore a “curious observer” if you want to see what sorts of signs people are carrying, their emblems, what they are shouting? All very curious, if you ask me.
This leads me to speculate that we are moving towards the licencing of the media by the State in the UK. The only way not to be bracketed as a “curious observer” as far as this dimwit of a judge is concerned would, presumably, to have a badge and lanyard stating you are “press”, or a jacket of the sort they have in the police and FBI in the US, maybe (and therefore, a target for yobs who hate journalists.) Reporters would end up like official war correspondents in combat zones, forced to wear a garment with the word “press” on it and accompanied by the military or police.
And lest anyone thinks this is a narrowly Left-wing concern, I am sure there are supposedly more conservative politicians who would not be averse to such controls.
Here is an outline of the main political parties said about media regulation before the 4 July election. Not one of the parties came close to a full-throated defence, with no ifs or buts, about press freedom (subject only to the constraints of the Common Law such as libel, etc).
Reading this a few years ago, people might have assumed this was all satire, craziness, signs of the writer getting unduly hot and bothered. Yet here we are, more than a month into the administration of Sir Keir Starmers, on 35% of votes cast and on a 60% turnout, which is low by historical standards. On the basis of this loveless landslide, much mischief is being built. As he showed by his enthusiasm for lockdowns a few years ago, Sir Keir’s happy place, psychologically and politically, is authortarianism.
The idea of how the bottom-up, volantaristic forces drive a healthy society is a closed book to the prime minister. For Sir Keir, and many of his colleagues, they are always “seeing like a state”. The sadness is that in this regard, Sir Keir and is colleagues are far from alone.
Update: I cannot resist not putting up this splendid answer by Andrew Neil, former Sunday Times editor, TV presenter – and my former boss – to the idiotic question from an MP about what the State should do for the media. Play this, and enjoy.
My immediate question: are the people who were attacked with machetes by Peaceful Muslims considered “curious observers” who will be arrested?
The mainstream media have so shown their worth over the last few weeks. Rags reputed the be right leaning have labelled the riots and protectors far right in line with the government.
I’d also like to point our that if we has a bill of political rights as per the US to limit the actions of the state, the UK would be a better place. A BOR created by a constitutional convention and beyond parliaments reach.
forced to wear a garment with the word “press” on it
Which, in many languages, translates as “target”.
Which, in many languages, translates as “target”.
Correct.
Yes, the ‘right of centre’ papers (Sun, Times, Mail, Telegraph, Express, Spectator, etc) have been so pathetic. I could understand if they just condemned the riots from a law and order POV. The way they’ve gone out their way to praise far left and Islamist ‘counter-protestors’ though and claim they represent Britain…🤮
I’m reminded of Auron Macintyre’s famous tweet: ‘You don’t hate journalists enough. You think you do but you don’t.’
Yes, the ‘right of centre’ papers (Sun, Times, Mail, Telegraph, Express, Spectator, etc) have been so pathetic. I could understand if they just condemned the riots from a law and order POV. The way they’ve gone out their way to praise far left and Islamist ‘counter-protestors’ though and claim they represent Britain…🤮
That’s not my impression. The DT, to take just one paper, has plenty of columnists berating the differential approach to the riots of last week, and the approach to policing the months and months of demos about Gaza, etc. (I haven’t really followed what the Times or Mail have written, but I’d be surprised if the Mail was weak on this.)
By the way, remember how the Sun newspaper – which is hated by the blue-noses out there – was attacked by the BBC and its media toadies for exposing Huw Edwards, the news anchor, who has now fessed up to all kinds of ugly crimes? The Sun did the necessary business on this story, unlike the other, more “respectable” side of it.
Exposing bad people and movements is dirty work.
So if the Police ask for witnesses to some crime and I respond and give a statement that I saw it happen, etc. I can then be arrested ‘just because I was there’.
So if the Police ask for witnesses to some crime and I respond and give a statement that I saw it happen, etc. I can then be arrested ‘just because I was there’.
Yes, pretty much.
Bear in mind, by the way, Sir Keir Starmer used to be Director of Public Prosecutions. So he has zero excuse, none, not to see the absurdities of where such an approach will lead. But remember, that he is a socialist and fan of the Big State, and like a lot of such people, not especially intelligent in his understanding of where that leads.
This was the aspect of Starmer that has always worried me the most. Not the taxes or the silly spending, because bad though that is going to be, it is relatively reversible, although it will be politically difficult. What I really fear is the further hollowing out, the loss, of remembering when things were better. This is a government that seems to have no understanding of due process of law, or respect for it.
If there is a silver lining, it is that quite a lot of those who stayed at home on 4 July, or voted reform etc to punish the Tories, can see what is going on. Remember, 65 per cent of voters did NOT vote Labour at the election.
JP,
I think that is a big assumption about the understanding Sir Keir has of, “where that leads”. Sir Keir is very intelligent.
Obviously, it could well lead to more and more DEI and such like which obviously the left would like because it means their useless sociology graduate kids can get nice jobs. What I don’t think is understood at all (not because Sir Keir et. al. aren’t bright enough to grasp it but because their premises don’t allow such conclusions to be drawn) is that you simply cannot impose a sense of friendship or community by decree. They are philosopher-kings and they believe they can make it so and even if that demonstrably doesn’t work it’s not their fault – it’s due to “lack of resources” or the conveniently nebulous “far-right”.
If it is anything it is just reasoning from false axioms will lead to bad conclusions no matter how smart you are.
Do y’all no longer have the Riot Act? Or are they simply declaring riot at the start of any gathering? It was my impression that the Act must be declared in the presence of the rioters before a gathering becomes illegal. (Of course, violent or destructive actors can be arrested without the benefit of the Act.)
And, do they treat spectators as badly for a muslim march or demonstration? In the US, I think we’d have an Equal Protection claim if they’re treating different viewpoints differently.
I see Starmer is getting off to a great start — pretty much what we’d expect.
I do want to disagree with Andrew Neil though. He said “I’m a Jeffersonian, government should do what only government can do, and do it well.” He is mistaken. Government should do what only government can do, but when they do, they’ll do it badly, because governments never do anything well. But some things only they can do, and it is better that they do it badly than it not be done at all.
Witness the law and courts. We need the law and courts, and only they can do it. But boy do they cock it up.
bobby b
The common law offence of riot was swept away in the 1980s by Mrs Thatcher’s government, and in place of a life sentence maximum was a 10-year sentence. The Riot Act did not prohibit riot as such but provided for a means to deal with them with lethal force and it was abolished in 1973.
Ah, thanks, Mr Ed.
Johnathan Pearce – it is not complicated.
It, basically, means that if the authorities do not like you (because you do not share their world view – or some other reason) they can arrest and punish you without the irritating business of bothering to make up much of an excuse.
Witnessed a riot, but did not take part in it – does not matter, still arrest and punishment.
Passed on film on social media that shows that events were not what the authorities claimed them to be – another crime.
Whatever, it does not really matter anymore what you do or say – what matters is whether the authorities take a dislike to you or not. As long as a person, journalist or not, follows the establishment line they will, likely, be fine – if they do not follow the establishment line, then having a “journalism license” will not save them, and the license would be withdrawn anyway.
It is justified on Jeremy Bentham grounds – “the greatest good of the greatest number” as defined by the state. Remember rights AGAINST the state are “nonsense” indeed “nonsense on stilts”.
They also misuse J.S. Mill – by twisting his “harm principle” (it was loosely worded in the first place – but Mr Mill did not intend what they have done to it) – now “harm” means showing disrespect or inspiring “hate” for fashionable groups who are (absurdly) called “marginalised” or “oppressed” groups.
Modern “liberalism” is far closer to the Marxism of Herbert Marcuse, than it is to the ideas of J.S. Mill.
Anyone know if the rioters or protectors that have been jailed had a jury trial?