The campaign against live animal exports at Ramsgate and now Dover has always been a lawful campaign. Demonstrations have always been peaceful. There has been no damage to property, no violent attacks and no secret conspiracy to break the law. Everything is above board and all our demonstrations and meetings are openly advertised. So why would the Police wish to spy on myself and, I am sure, many other people from Thanet who are simply exercising their democratic right to speak out and demonstrate against a barbaric and cruel trade? Its interesting to note that one of the entries in the database was about a meeting I organised in Margate in 2012 about Equal Marriage. Equal Marriage is now the law of the land. It was supported by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition so why did the police waste time and money recording the fact that I organised this meeting in their extremism data base?
In these difficult financial times how much have police spent on this totally unnecessary spying operation on Thanet people who care about animal welfare? I have raised this issue with Anne Barnes and will be contacting the Met Police to have my records destroyed. I am beginning to wonder whether I should I submit another FIO request now that I campaigning against fracking.
Here is a video of meeting on the London Assembly Police Committee where Green Party Assembly Member, Jenny Jones talks about spying on innocent people, including a mention of my case.
Here is the police record
Some animal rights activist have resorted to breaking and entry, violence, releasing non indigenous animals into the countryside and letter bombs so it would not seem unreasonably for the police to monitor the activities of animal campaigners, if only to eliminate them as possible extremists. Perhaps you would prefer the police to be more reactive and only take an interest after a crime has been committed.
ReplyDeleteIt's astonishing that the police have time to monitor a relatively obscure local politician who is guilty of nothing other than doing his job by asking awkward questions about a local issue. I wonder how many such records they are keeping and how many man hours are being spent on this rather pointless form of surveillance. People who are engaged in crime don't usually stand on a soap-box with a megaphone. It's all very peculiar when they don't seem to have the manpower to send someone out when an actual crime has been reported. I guess that's me added to their hit-list too (unless I was already on it).
ReplyDeleteWilliam Epps becomes more like some character from the Kenny Everett Show by the day: Some animal activists have done something illegal and so, this justifies surveillance on anyone who has opposed live exports. It's a bit like saying: "Some Tories have fiddled their expenses so we'd better keep all of them under surveillance." Or perhaps William would prefer the police to be reactive and only to get involved after the expenses have been fiddled.
ReplyDelete18:55 & 19:02 at least I have the courage to put a name to my opinions. Think about for a bit and tell me where exactly police surveillance should start? After the bomb has gone off perhaps or are you saying, don't watch someone who is just doing his job? Most people are just doing their job before they become extremists of one kind or another, but you can only separate the threats from the peaceful demonstrators by surveillance. By the way, 19:02, it wasn't just Tories who fiddled their expense and most of those locked up for it were Labour.
DeleteThere's nothing courageous about putting your name to your opinions. There is no physical threat to anybody posting on this or any other blog and so it doesn't require courage to post your name. I'm afraid you're just blustering about how brave you are. As for your naïve arguments about surveillance, under your rules, there would be nothing to prevent England becoming a police state. Why don't you tell us what limits you would set for the powers of the police - or perhaps you see no need for limits or boundaries?
ReplyDelete23:38, I was not talking about physical courage, but that required simply to acknowledge your own views. If you are not prepared to be associated with your comments what value do they have.
DeleteTalk of a police state in this country is nonsense, but the safety of the public is paramount. Where would you draw the line or would you close down GCHQ, MI5, MI6 and Special Branch completely. The difference here to more totalitarian states is that Ian was able to get a copy of the police file which is a massive safeguard in itself.
You know, 23.28, there is nothing particularly brave about referring to another commentator as blustering or naive when sheltering under an anonymous tag. You should take a leaf out of Ian Driver's book for, though I seldom agree with his politics, at least he has the courage of his convictions and stands up and says what he thinks. You do not find him hiding away and sneaking in his views via the back door.
DeleteLet's see if William or his alter ego can resist the urge to have the last word.
ReplyDelete