Quote:

---

"Kettling" tactics used by the Metropolitan Police to contain crowds in 2001 were lawful, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled.

The controversial method was used during anti-globalisation demonstrations in London on 1 May 2001.

Police blocked off Oxford Circus and corralled those inside for seven hours.

The court said there had been no violation of Article 5 - the right to liberty and security - of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Three people - George Black, a Greek national from Australia; Bronwyn Lowenthal and Peter O'Shea - who had nothing to do with the demonstration, took the case to Europe claiming they were "deprived of their liberty".

They were joined by Lois Austin, from Basildon, Essex, who had been taking part in the protest.

'Volatile conditions'

The court said: "The police had imposed the cordon to isolate and contain a large crowd in dangerous and volatile conditions.

"This had been the least intrusive and most effective means to protect the public from violence. Although the police tried to start dispersing the crowd throughout the afternoon, they had been unable to do so as the danger had persisted."

It was the first time the court in Strasbourg had been asked to rule on kettling.

The House of Lords had earlier ruled kettling on that day had been "necessary, proportionate and lawful".

The BBC's legal affairs correspondent Clive Coleman said: "The essence of the judgement really is that kettling is lawful if it's done in the right way, if it's proportionate and is enforced for no longer than reasonably necessary and if it's being undertaken to avoid personal injury and damage to property."

The European Court's Grand Chamber of 17 judges, presided over by Belgium's Francoise Tulkens, said: "Even by 2001, advances in communications technology had made it possible to mobilise protesters rapidly and covertly on a hitherto unknown scale.

"Article 5 did not have to be construed in such a way as to make it impracticable for the police to fulfil their duties of maintaining order and protecting the public."

The judges ruled that the convention also placed a duty on the police "to protect individuals from violence and physical injury".

Earlier this year, in a separate case, the Met won its appeal against a High Court ruling over kettling tactics used during G20 demonstrations in 2009.

In that case Hannah McClure, a student, and Josh Moos, a campaigner for Plane Stupid, challenged the legality of restraint methods used against them in April 2009 when they were contained by officers in Bishopsgate in the City of London.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

This judgment is highly questionable.

Confining people for seven hours, anywhere, amounts to imprisonment. This is true whether the confining space is a jail cell or a street block.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RionaEire:
On first glance this looks wrong to do to people.

---

Quote:

---

I'm interested in alternate solutions.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

I'm interested in alternate solutions.

---

Let people go.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

I'm interested in alternate solutions.

---

Let people go.

---

And if those people do destroy property as has occurred in several other G20, World Bank, and WTO demonstrations, just explain to the folks who lost their property and livelihood that it's all for the greater good?



"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Pre-crime is not a viable concept in Free nations. Preventative imprisonment is not a viable concept in Free nations. Presumption of guilt is not a viable concept in Free nations. Imprisonment without crime is not a viable concept in Free nations.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Pre-crime is not a viable concept in Free nations. Preventative imprisonment is not a viable concept in Free nations. Presumption of guilt is not a viable concept in Free nations. Imprisonment without crime is not a viable concept in Free nations.

---

Quote:

---

And if those people do destroy property as has occurred in several other G20, World Bank, and WTO demonstrations, just explain to the folks who lost their property and livelihood that it's all for the greater good?

---

Quote:

---

Various "tough on crime" legislators here in the US have proposed it at various times, but it has never caught on.

---

Quote:

---

Woman had a restraining order against her husband because he'd threatened to kill her. He was arrested two times within 72 hours for stalking her, and released by a judge. He then went to where she was staying, beat her, dragged her to her car, drove her downtown, and killed her.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, why not just impose a curfew on everyone, all the time, and be done with freedom altogether? Because after all, who knows what mischief people MIGHT get into?

---

Quote:

---

Yanno, I disagree with the definition of "crime". Say, a bank building is burned and a million dollars damage is done. How does that compare with the billions of dollars the bank loaned irresponsibly? Who belongs in jail?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oonjerah:

I sure don't see where the stalking, murderous husband fits into this thread.
The LAW (judge, cops) failed the wife which is pretty SOP in this country.

---

Quote:

---

BTW, was the husband even arrested for his crime? Serve 2 years maybe?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RionaEire:
Geezer a chara, I see where you're coming from sort of, but I can't go there, this is unlawful imprisonment and I just can't abide that in our country here. If England wants to do that then its their business, but I don't want that happening here.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Then again, in most any recent G20, WTO, Anti-globalization protest, you'll read of people who were trapped in their offices or businesses due to fear of violence by the protestors. Is that unlawful imprisonment by the protestors? Do they have any responsibility to these people, or the ones with property or businesses damaged?

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Anyone who was actually prevented from leaving a building has been injured. (This does not include a generic fear of unwashed masses, but rather someone actually preventing them from leaving, or harming them when they attempt to leave.)

---

Quote:

---

But people who don't do these things are not criminals and can't be treated as criminals on the assumption that they will do these things.

---

Quote:

---

So if folks are smashing the windows of your building, you're still not being imprisoned because the folks doing the vandalism might not hurt you if you tried to leave?

Seems you're pretty free with other folk's safety.

---

Quote:

---

And we're back to the perfect world again

---