12 Year Old 'Protester' Hauled In By Anti-Terror Police

[Rob McCow]

This was an interesting story from the Guardian, given the fuss about protesters in the captial lately:

Police have apologised for taking a 12-year-old boy out of lessons last week to question him about a planned picket outside David Cameron's constituency office.

Nicky Wishart, a pupil at Bartholomew School in Eynsham, Oxfordshire, organised the protest in an attempt to save his youth club and 20 others in the area from closure in March, a consequence of £4.2m of cuts in Oxfordshire county council's youth services budget.

Wishart set up a Facebook page with a 13-year-old friend to advertise the protest. It attracted more than 130 people, mainly children and young teenagers from surrounding youth clubs in the Witney area, where Cameron is the local MP.

Five days before the peaceful picket, the school was contacted by anti-terrorist police after they saw the page, according to Wishart's mother, Virginia Phelps.

Chief inspector Jack Malhi, Thames Valley police's local area commander for West Oxfordshire, said: "With the benefit of hindsight, it would have been far more appropriate to have made the inquiries from Nicky in the presence of his mother. I deeply regret and apologise for the impact that it might have had on Nicky and his family. I would like to reassure people that our contact with Nicky was primarily to make him aware of the risks and have an idea of the scale of the protest."

Despite the threat of arrest, Wishart went ahead with the protest last Friday. At the protest, he said: "The youth centre means loads to me. It's the only thing we have to do in Eynsham."

His mother said of the apology: "I really appreciate it because that's what you want. It can't be left up in the air. He [Malhi] phoned me and has invited me and Nicky to go and have a cup of tea with him. He went through everything and he was a really nice guy."

The headteacher of Bartholomew school, Andrew Hamilton, also apologised to the family for the incident.

You know, I'm chuffed that the Police are taking the risk of terrorism so seriously, but on the other hand there is no way that this should have happened! Somewhere between the brain and the boot was a severe lack of thought as to what they were actually doing.

The campaigners have every right to protest and by the sound of it every reason to - and what the hell does this mean for freedom of speech if you can't talk openly on the internet without risking a visit from the police?

[Si Hunt]

On the other hand, we seem to have a two-faced approach to juveniles and minorities in this country. 12 years old is apparently old enough to be out protesting, and possibly committing vandalism/breach of the peace, but not to be taken in and questioned about it.

Likewise I had to bite my lip on Facebook the other day when someone cried "Police Brutality! Police haul a disabled man out his wheelchair!" and you look at it and go "Crikey, nasty, brutal police!" and there is a chap off-camera going "Bastards! You're pulling him out his wheelchair! BASTARDS!". And then I thought, well, that man could have been sat in his wheelchair chucking missiles at police! What are they supposed to do? Take it because he's disabled? It seems its ok for youngsters and disabled people to protest, perhaps violently, they want to be treated the same when given that "right", but not when it comes to facing the consequences.

Si.

[Rob McCow]

But then that becomes the consequences for protesting about something that you believe in.

Why do these people end up throwing stuff at police? It always starts out as a peaceful protest, but then either the police start jostling people, pushing them or maybe one of the protesters starts shouting at them, or being a bit too aggressive and suddenly it all gets out of hand. And because there are so many people around it's going to be impossible to tell whether the police were getting too rough or whether it was the crowd.

But generally, in about 99% of situations, assaulting somebody in a wheelchair should be unnecessary, firstly because it's more difficult for the mobility impaired to actually pose a serious threat to trained police officers in protective gear, secondly because it should be possible to restrain them without pulling them out of their chair but mostly because they're in a wheelchair.

Then again, who knows what really goes on in the heat of a protest?

[Si Hunt]

But generally, in about 99% of situations, assaulting somebody in a wheelchair should be unnecessary, firstly because it's more difficult for the mobility impaired to actually pose a serious threat to trained police officers in protective gear, secondly because it should be possible to restrain them without pulling them out of their chair but mostly because they're in a wheelchair.

You can, however, throw objects at police just as easily in a wheelchair as you can standing up. It's not impossible to be violent when sitting down.

I don't get the thirdly - you seem to be saying you shouldn't restrain someone simply because they're in a wheelchair. Again, if you head out into a situation which is likely to turn violent, you are saying "I have the equal right to do this"; you therefore must accept that the flipside is this is you will be treated like everyone else and hauled onto the floor. Being jumped on by police is not nice whether you are able-bodied or not, and I suspect we are only shocked at this because we have automatic sympathy/allowance for someone who is disabled because they must have an awful life. So what we are actually saying is that we should excuse someone for violence in a protest because they're disadvantaged in life generally. And I don't think that's right - unless we are saying we should have another set of more lenient laws for disabled people. Maybe we should let them shoplift too, on the grounds that they've had a tough time so deserve a bit of a break?

Si.

[Si Hunt]

Anyway, I'll tell you what I dislike. It's when people use notions about a minority to excuse them, particuarly with kids. I guess it must come from seeing what the little bleeders can do at school, and how teachers are treated like criminals if they go anywhere near them; a kid is old enough to abuse a teacher or an adult or a policeman, hit out, be violent, or possibly plan a violent demonstration. But then as soon as the authorities get involved it's all "picking on kiddies! Shame on you!". I equally hate the tabloid use of the word "Mum" to make someone who happens to have birthed a child into a cuddly, victimised figure when she wants compensation for something.

If you're old enough or able enough to find trouble, you should be old enough or able enough to accept the consequences, I think!

Si.

[Rob McCow]

Yeah, but starting a Facebook group to say you're going to start a peaceful protest doesn't warrant any kind of action from the police! Not unless you've got a history of starting riots, blowing things up, beating people up at football matches etc. Whether the guy was 12 years old or 82, it was totally out of proportion.

As for Jody McIntyre, this is what the BBC say:

Video footage of a protester apparently being dragged from his wheelchair by police and pulled across a street has emerged amid claims the police used disproportionate force in dealing with student demonstrators last week.

Jody McIntyre says he was the victim of unprovoked action by the police who appeared to pull him from his wheelchair.

The Metropolitan police have responded to the video and released the following statement:

"In connection with the incident shown on you tube of a tuition fees protestor in a wheelchair, the Met Police confirm the man involved Jody McIntyre has not launched an official complaint. The issue has been referred by the Met Police to Directorate of Professional Standards - The Met Police will contact Jody McIntyre directly."

Jody McIntyre himself has put a blog up at the Independent: http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2010/...apathetic-now/

The implication is that he was unlucky to be at the front of the crowd and that he was not throwing anything at the police.

[Si Hunt]

Well he's going to say that isn't he!

Si.

[WhiteCrowNZ]

Yeah, but starting a Facebook group to say you're going to start a peaceful protest doesn't warrant any kind of action from the police!

Nice to know the Police have so much spare time on their hands. Now where are the budget cuts?

[Alex]

On the other hand, we seem to have a two-faced approach to juveniles and minorities in this country. 12 years old is apparently old enough to be out protesting, and possibly committing vandalism/breach of the peace, but not to be taken in and questioned about it.

Whatever happened to being innocent until found guilty? And this is even before an event has taken place, it beggars belief to me. I know the police force has a hard job to do, but going around and trying to talk a person out of holding a protest for a legitimate cause (and one which benefits the whole community) is not part of their remit in my mind.

Anyway, I'll tell you what I dislike. It's when people use notions about a minority to excuse them, particuarly with kids. I guess it must come from seeing what the little bleeders can do at school, and how teachers are treated like criminals if they go anywhere near them; a kid is old enough to abuse a teacher or an adult or a policeman, hit out, be violent, or possibly plan a violent demonstration. But then as soon as the authorities get involved it's all "picking on kiddies! Shame on you!". I equally hate the tabloid use of the word "Mum" to make someone who happens to have birthed a child into a cuddly, victimised figure when she wants compensation for something.

If you're old enough or able enough to find trouble, you should be old enough or able enough to accept the consequences, I think!

But he didn't do anything wrong! Infact he was trying to keep open an establishment which would help take kids off the street, surely that's a good thing?

Well he's going to say that isn't he!

Si.

There's video evidence and countless witnesses, and his cerebal palsy would make it extremely difficult for him to throw a missile with any force (if not impossible), and yet you still think that he's guilty? I have to say I'm genuinely confused by your condemnation of him when all the evidence suggests he was completely innocent.

So what we are actually saying is that we should excuse someone for violence in a protest because they're disadvantaged in life generally.

And again you've decided someone's guilty of violence when there's no evidence to support this view whatsoever. Even the police haven't suggested he threw missiles, and surely they'd have mentioned that in passing if he had!

Sadly in every very large protest you do get people who are out to cause trouble, but they're always a tiny minority, as (respectable) news reports have always shown. And in these troubled times it's more important than ever for the police to abide by the law themselves, and not overstep the mark as they have many, many times in the past. (Just read reports from the Miner's Strike to see how appallingly they acted in the 80s, and there are a lot for this decade as well).

[Si Hunt]

Hang on, hang on, hang on.

I didn't say he was "guilty" and I didn't "condemn" him. I was speaking generally the whole way through my post, the point being that, who-ever you are, if you decide you are able to take part in a situation very likely to end up violent (as everyone knows these protests have been) then you should know what to expect.

I think you should read my posts again, because I think you've misunderstood what I was saying. I was speaking generally all the way through.

Incidentally, if we're talking about this particular chap, there's only video evidence of how the police restrained him, not what he did or didn't do immediately beforehand to warrant it...

Si.

[Alex]

Sorry Si, I've been arguing this case on another forum and my stressy side over it leaked in to that post. I still stand by my assertion though that it's more important than ever for the police to abide by the law, however difficult a situation they are in. Of course they need to be protected, and force should be carefully used if someone is being violent towards them (or anyone else) but they certainly shouldn't have acted in the way that some have.

That said, with the police I know it is a minority that spoil the reputation of the majority, much as with the protestors, so it is a difficult situation to judge. But in regards to both those mentioned above, I really think they overstepped the mark.

[Si Hunt]

What did the police who spoke to that kid actually do? As far as I ascertain all they did was to speak to a member of the public. Aside from the non present parent (for which they apologised) what's the problem? Maybe they thought that by speaking to someone who'd suggested he knew what was going to happen they could avoid the protest turning violent and prevent members of the public getting hurt?

Si.

[WhiteCrowNZ]

I was thinking about this - and wondering what kind of place Eynsham must be that the Police have nothing better to do ...

Local industries include gravel extraction and the large superconducting magnet factory, Siemens Magnet Technology Ltd. Eynsham also has a business park on its outskirts.

Eynsham Football Club plays in Witney and District Football League Division One.[11] Eynsham Sports and Social Club plays in Witney and District Football League Division Three and its reserve team plays in Division Four.[12] Eynsham Cricket Club[13] plays in Oxfordshire Cricket Association League Division Three.[14]

Eynsham has a Women's Institute and a Morris dancing side.

Sinister indeed. It's the bloody village from Hot Fuzz!!!

[Rob McCow]

I think the police called him out of a lesson to speak to him. His parents were not present.

Although it's fair enough trying to ensure that a protest stays peaceful, I don't think the 12 year-old kid who started the ball rolling on Facebook is going to have much say in the matter, especially if his voice hasn't broken yet.

[Si Hunt]

Isn't that for the police to decide though? Look at it from the other way round - why would they talk to him if there was no information to be gleaned? And, without appearing to be spoiling for a fight, this is the exactly the sort of thing I mentioned earlier - his voice hasn't broken, so he must be a little angel? You should spend a day in a modern secondry school Steve, you might change your mind!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8417317.stm

Si.

[brandynigma]

I would wonder why anti-terror police want to speak to a 12 year old boy about a protest to keep a youth centre open.

Unless there's a suspiciously old looking teenager at the back muttering 'Booooom' under her breath, I'm failing to see the terrorism connection.

[Alex]

I would wonder why anti-terror police want to speak to a 12 year old boy about a protest to keep a youth centre open.

Unless there's a suspiciously old looking teenager at the back muttering 'Booooom' under her breath, I'm failing to see the terrorism connection.

That's exactly how I feel.

I guess there's two ways of looking at it: Either they thought advising the child would help make sure that the protest didn't get out of hand, or that they were trying to put him off the idea.

Either way, when it comes to a small scale situation like this, I don't think it's a job the police should be involved with. I can see Si has a lot more faith in the police than I do, but after recent (and not so recent) events I can't help but be cycnical about their motivations.

[Zbigniev Hamson]

Isn't that for the police to decide though? Look at it from the other way round - why would they talk to him if there was no information to be gleaned? And, without appearing to be spoiling for a fight, this is the exactly the sort of thing I mentioned earlier - his voice hasn't broken, so he must be a little angel? You should spend a day in a modern secondry school Steve, you might change your mind!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8417317.stm

Si.

Is that link about the same girl who, not very long after, recanted entirely and said they had just been playing doctor and she just decided to cause a fuss?

[WhiteCrowNZ]

I would wonder why anti-terror police want to speak to a 12 year old boy about a protest to keep a youth centre open.

That's probably because some of the anti-terror laws for monitoring people have become some of the most abused laws in history.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...in-crimes.html

[Jason Thompson]

Aside from the non present parent (for which they apologised) what's the problem?

They should never ave taken him out of lessons to speak to him. The police have a duty to try to prevent crime, it is true, but there are guidelines on how they should act while doing so, and pulling a minor out of school to ask him questions about a planned peaceful protest with his parents nowehere to be seen is not within their remit. The fact that they have apologised is really not the point when they should not have done what they did in the first place. This wasn't an admin error or a silly prank that got out of hand. Those are apologised for and forgotten. This was a group of professional people who actively made a decision to act outside their remit.

Maybe they thought that by speaking to someone who'd suggested he knew what was going to happen they could avoid the protest turning violent and prevent members of the public getting hurt?

I'm sure they did, but why do it then? They had five days before the event was due to take place. They could have called to his house after school and discreetly spoken to him then, not marched into a school and taken him away from his lessons. Lessons, incidentally, that he is legally required to attend at his age.

Better yet, why not simply attend on the day of the protest and keep an eye on things?

[Jason Thompson]

Well he's going to say that isn't he!

Not to get at you, Si, but this phrase really annoys me. A guilty person may well protest his innocence, but that doesn't detract from the other side of the coin: that an innocent person is also very obviously going to protest his innocence.

It annoys me because it implies that people have already decided the person in question is lying, therefore won't listen to him whatever he says. Hardly the 'innocent untl proven guilty' attitude that our entire legal system is suposedly founded on, is it?

[SiHart]

There's an interview with the kid and his Mum in The Independent today: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...g-2164835.html

Si xx

[Larry]

Likewise I had to bite my lip on Facebook the other day when someone cried "Police Brutality! Police haul a disabled man out his wheelchair!" and you look at it and go "Crikey, nasty, brutal police!" and there is a chap off-camera going "Bastards! You're pulling him out his wheelchair! BASTARDS!". And then I thought, well, that man could have been sat in his wheelchair chucking missiles at police! What are they supposed to do? Take it because he's disabled? It seems its ok for youngsters and disabled people to protest, perhaps violently, they want to be treated the same when given that "right", but not when it comes to facing the consequences.

Si.

Si, as a disabled person I use a wheel chair whenever I go out - I am not condoning what this person did or may have done but the police were totally wrong to treat a disabled person in the way they did. For a start the police would of had no idea how serious his disability was and what effect manhandling him to the floor would have on him . If he was guilty of any crime then he could just of easely been restrained while still sitting in his chair.

Anyway, I'll tell you what I dislike. It's when people use notions about a minority to excuse them, particuarly with kids. I guess it must come from seeing what the little bleeders can do at school, and how teachers are treated like criminals if they go anywhere near them; a kid is old enough to abuse a teacher
Si.

my dad once told me that many years ago when he first started as a teacher in a school in Chelsea, there was one occassion that this teenage boy kept being disruptive and mouthy. My dad momentarily lost his temper turned round and punched the boy almost knocking him clean out now baring in mind this was the 1950's there would of been an out cry had my dad been sacked for hitting a disrespective pupil. (it was the only time he ever hit a pupil in 30 years of teaching but oH how times have changed had my dad been teaching today and done that he would of been instantly sacked and facing a prison sentence.

[Larry]

I think the police called him out of a lesson to speak to him. His parents were not present.

Although it's fair enough trying to ensure that a protest stays peaceful, I don't think the 12 year-old kid who started the ball rolling on Facebook is going to have much say in the matter, especially if his voice hasn't broken yet.

That for me is what I find so worrying that everything we the public are writting on various internet forums no matter how innocent or trivial is being monitored by the police and other security services.

[Dirk Gently]

That for me is what I find so worrying that everything we the public are writting on various internet forums no matter how innocent or trivial is being monitored by the police and other security services.

Do you think this will have an impact on me blowing up the next Royal Wedding?