I’m sure that in a newsroom somewhere there’s a journalist or editor with a bee in their inky bonnet about the arrest and subsequent release of 5 people in Plymouth last week.
I’m sure there’s someone arguing that the release without charge of these five people should be plastered all over today’s newspapers. After all, their arrest under the Terrorism Act received blanket front page coverage.
I’m sure there’s a passionate journalist, right now, doorstepping the police officers involved and trying to tease out how the arrest of a 25-year-old man for spraying the grafito ‘Antifa’ lead to the unwarranted detention of 4 others under the Terrorism Act.
I’m sure there’s someone asking what it must be like to be a 16-year-old schoolboy wrongly arrested under the Terrorism Act.
I’m sure a feared editor is banging a table with angry fists and sending journalists scurrying to uncover the facts: to disclose the ‘information [the police] had at the time of the arrests’; to make public the evidence presented to the district judge that allowed their continued detention.
I’m sure the ‘material relating to political ideology’ is about to be revealed in an in-depth investigative report. We’ll soon know if we’re talking about tracts inciting revolution or copies of Thatcher’s autobiography.
I’m sure that one of those awful infographic timelines is being sketched out, describing what came to light between the initial Friday night arrest for simple criminal damage and the Sunday arrests of his associates.
It may well be that the police actions were proportionate and necessary – in good faith. But something smells wrong here – and has done from the initial reports of the action. Surely there’s a journalist or editor somewhere that’s pursuing this story?
So far, no evidence of said reporter has appeared.
I'm Ben Griffiths: an escapee of web 1.0 and web 2.0 start-ups; a programmer; developer; architect; sometime consultant; team leader; agile exponent.
I live in Greenwich, London.
6 comments ↓
Very fine post. Reminds me of the way they overlooked the Talbert Street Bomb haul a couple of years ago, because it was just white guys — although they actually had explosives.
In the old days terrorism offenses were all prosecuted under the Explosive Substances Act which gives extremely wide police powers to question people. Unfortunately, some explosive substances actually have to exist for it to apply.
Nowadays they just make stuff up and the press fills in some horror story around it in order to escalate what would probably be no more than some juvenile fantasy trip if handled right.
Luckily we can still fall back on a fair legal system, can’t we?
Wait, one of the commenters on the local paper report said:
“Its rumoured the operation cost about £3/4m. Is that right and that a highly vetted terrorism judge was helicoptered down from London to rubber stamp extensions of detention time?”
We need to know the details of which sections of which terrorism act, and then track down said judge.
I’ve not got much internet connection at the moment. Could anyone who’s reading this phone or send an email to those police and get from them specifically which Sections of the Terrorism Act they’re using? There are hundreds of them.
I’m sure this week’s will be treated at least as well.
If they were charged that would (probably) be a national story, therefore you can assume they weren’t charged if you hear nothing further.
I think the story you are looking for whether the anti terror laws are being widely and systematically abused. Delivering proof for a story like this is long hard work. Julian Todd’s has been making FOI enquiries regarding this area. As they say “don’t hate the media, become the media”.
Julian, I can’t agree with you here.
The media have allowed a false impression of what happened to stand through incompetence – it’s not even that they down-played the releases, it’s been all but completely ignored.
I know why I think – and it’s nothing to do with what the ’story’ is.
It’s because the news wires didn’t pick up the release and because no-one cared enough to check up on the initial story. It’s a simple failure of process, right?
If the process of the media is 1) get press release or wire, 2) write story, 3) goto 1. then this is going to keep happening.
Reporting that these people were released is not a complicated, intrigue-riddent story that needs hard proof – it’s a simple facts that these 5 were released that should be reported. Oh, and in any case, stories like Watergate were broken through the publishing of many, many small stories of fact. I don’t see your point, really.
Dont worry guys, none of us were charged
And youre right, being in that cell for six days was bloody awful.
Cheers for your concern
Leave a Comment