UK: Police hold mother-of-three for reading 'Independent' outside Downing Street

Status
Not open for further replies.

Zedicus

Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2003
Messages
1,976
Location
Idaho
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1152047.ece
(requires registration)

Police hold mother-of-three for reading 'Independent' outside Downing Street

London Independent/Terry Kirby | July 1 2006

An anti-Iraq war protester was questioned by police outside Downing Street because she was reading The Independent.

Charity Sweet, 40, and a mother-of-three, was holding a copy of Thursday's edition which carried the headline: "Warning: if you read this newspaper you may be arrested under the Government's anti-terror laws."

Inside was an article reprinted from Vanity Fair magazine which ran across the first three pages of that day's issue of the newspaper. The article, by the writer Henry Porter, accused the Blair Government of a sustained erosion of civil liberties.

As she sat outside Downing Street, Ms Sweet was approached and questioned by a police officer. When he had finished his inquiries she was astonished to be handed a form detailing the reasons for his interest which included "reading today's Independent".

Earlier this month, Steven Jago, an accountant and also an anti-war protester and friend of Ms Sweet, was arrested by police and later charged under the Serious and Organised Crime Act. He had been carrying copies of the magazine which were confiscated by police. On Thursday afternoon, after seeing The Independent had reprinted the article, Ms Sweet decided she would demonstrate her solidarity with Mr Jago and went to Downing Street to find him. Unsuccessful, she bought a sandwich and decided to eat it while sitting down under a tree near the gated entrance to Downing Street and reading the newspaper. She was also wearing a sign around her neck warning against bullying. After some minutes she was interrupted and questioned by a Scotland Yard officer.

Ms Sweet, from Chatham in Kent, said: "It was intrusive and ridiculous to think that I could not sit there and read the newspaper when I chose to. I don't have any issues with the officer himself, he was perfectly polite and just doing his job. He asked me who I was and what I was doing there. I told him the publication of the article was history in the making and I could not think of a more appropriate place to sit down and read it. I don't think I was causing a problem for anybody." She was not cautioned or arrested.
As is normal procedure, the officer handed Ms Sweet a form which set out why a particular person is stopped and, as can happen, searched. Under the section requiring a description of what the person stopped had been doing, the officer wrote: "Sitting outside D Street with Notification Around Neck about Bullying. And Reading Today's Independent."

Ms Sweet was allowed to continue reading The Independent. She left soon after, found Mr Jago and they went to sing protest songs and hymns outside the Palace of Westminster.

Ms Sweet's interest in the Iraq conflict stems from the fact that her first husband was an Iraqi Christian and their daughter, who is 18, is therefore half-Iraqi. She said: "What has happened there since the war is genocide. Life under that terrible dictator was actually far, far kinder and that is a very sad state of affairs." Originally from Canada, she has been living in the UK since 1991 and has two other children, a girl aged seven and a 13-year-old boy.

She has been cautioned once before and was present when Mr Jago was arrested. "I don't want to do things that get me arrested, because I am a mother and sometimes I have my young children with me," she said. "I am into building bridges, not burning them down."

Hows this for Absurdity?:scrutiny: :barf:
 
Given the spin of the article, I can see why the situation might be considered absurd. Reading the article carefully, what happened makes sense.

  • First, #10 Downing Street is not like the White House; the entrance is in a fairly confined area.
  • Someone with a protest sign is hanging around outside ("She was also wearing a sign around her neck warning against bullying.").
  • An officer approached the woman and asked what she was doing ("After some minutes she was interrupted and questioned by a Scotland Yard officer.").
  • British police are apparently required to give a written explanation if someone is questioned ("He asked me who I was and what I was doing there.").
  • The written explanation about questioning factually recorded what the woman was doing ("Sitting outside D Street with Notification Around Neck about Bullying. And Reading Today's Independent.").
Of course, the Independent wants the spin that the woman was questioned because she was reading their newspaper. But it looks a lot more like a police officer was only properly monitoring the area for security risks.
 
First, #10 Downing Street is not like the White House; the entrance is in a fairly confined area.

According to the article:
Unsuccessful, she bought a sandwich and decided to eat it while sitting down under a tree near the gated entrance to Downing Street and reading the newspaper.

she was not on Downing Street which has a gated entrance to the entire street much less sitting near #10 Downing Street. So she was not in your 'fairly enclosed area' but outside of a security gate closing off the entire street.

Reading the article carefully, what happened makes sense.

?????
 
Well reading the article does make the headline make no sense.
Police hold mother-of-three for reading 'Independent' outside Downing Street
She was questioned briefly by an officer that was polite and professional.
She was sitting there not only reading a newspaper that even the most state hating amongst us would not believe piqued the officers interest, but wearing a sign around her neck "warning about bullying". If we speculate briefly we could logically deduce that the sign was directed towards the police. Why would she wear such a sign? The only reason I can think of is to get attention. She got it but I doubt she got the attention she wanted so she and some sympathetic "journalist" blew the whole thing out of proportion
She was not cautioned or arrested.
And apparently not even detained , but left on her own accord to go and get attention elsewhere
Ms Sweet was allowed to continue reading The Independent. She left soon after, found Mr Jago and they went to sing protest songs and hymns outside the Palace of Westminster.
She has been cautioned once before and was present when Mr Jago was arrested.
You have to wonder if the officer recognized her and just wanted to know if his lunch hour was about to be interrupted
 
So she was not in your 'fairly enclosed area' but outside of a security gate closing off the entire street.
The gated entrance to Downing Street opens onto Whitehall. I consider a street (Whitehall) lined with buildings to be a more confined area than the open expanses of Lafayette Park and the Mall in relation to the White House. YMMV.

10Downing.gif

Should police ignore a protester loitering in a high-security area?
 
Last edited:
gc70,

That street, Whitehall, is a main thoroughfare of public use and travel. There is hardly any major street in London which does not have a potential "target" located somewhere on it.

-----------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
 
I know, rino451. :) The Independent's article was written to elicit sympathy for the protester and rage against the police; it achieves that goal more easily when the audience is predisposed to the message.
 
Police hold mother-of-three

This always manages to get me annoyed.....what in the world does it matter if this woman is a mother of 3 or 4 or 5 for that matter? Just because a person gives birth to a baby does that mean they are forever good and wholesome? Or does it mean that those who have not had a baby should be targeted more for some reason??:banghead:
 
Police hold mother-of-three

This always manages to get me annoyed.....what in the world does it matter if this woman is a mother of 3 or 4 or 5 for that matter?

Possibly to elicit sympathy.

But the UK press (I don't know if the American press is the same) also usually tries to mention the occupation (or equivilent) of anyone notable in a story.

"a chef has been arrested on suspicion of murder"
"a builder rescued a child who had fallen in a river"
"a pensioner is leading a campaign to save the local library"
"a mother of three was held by the police"
etc

They usually also mention their age as well (as in this story). Some other papers or classes of paper have their own preferences for mentioning seemingly irrelivent details. Some of the snobier middle-class papers (e.g. the Mail) like to mention the value of people's homes ("Mr Smith woke to find a burglar trying to get into his £650,000 home"), while the red-top tabloids will usually mention if a woman is young and attractive ("Sahra, a 23 year old blonde, spotted the burglars as they were trying to break into Mr Smith's mansion").
 
So, when exactly was she held by anyone? Or am I missing something?

She sat under a tree, a cop asked her some questions, gave her a piece of paper and left. Where did the "holding" happen?

Sounds like hype to drum up sales of the Independent.
 
The Independent's article was written to elicit sympathy for the protester and rage against the police; it achieves that goal more easily when the audience is predisposed to the message.

Au contraire, gc70. I think the Independent's article is disingenuous, at best. I have no sympathy for the protester nor rage against the police. Unless puzzlement over questioning her in the first place would be considered 'rage' by you.

I consider the policeman's actions to be exemplary.

I simply view your take on the situation as mistaken. That's all.

Best.
 
She was 'held' by police in the place she chose to be sitting apparently. That's conjecture and hyperbole besides. If she'd tried to walk away I doubt he'd had stopped her, merely followed her and continued to talk (or perhaps have been delighted, he probably wanted her to mvoe anyway!). They didn't restrain or arrest her, only talk to her. It's spin, they're just trying to sell papers.
 
gc70
The Independent's article was written to elicit sympathy for the protester and rage against the police
My goodness; a conspiracy involving a major newspaper?

How do they get the entire leadership of a national newspaper to go along with such a thing? Are they able to carry out this conspiracy in absolute secrecy - or are all the corporate employees on down in on this? ;)

------------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
 
The Independent is one of the more reliable mainstream newspapers.

It would have been worse if it were 'The Socialist'*.



*'The Guardian' :neener:
 
Possibly to elicit sympathy.

But the UK press (I don't know if the American press is the same) also usually tries to mention the occupation (or equivilent) of anyone notable in a story.

Yes, but the didn't note in the headline that she was a protestor, just a mother of three. That makes her sound all innocent, law abiding, with the warm and fuzzy feelings only a mother can provide.

They would not describe her as an unemployed person with so much free time on her hands that she can spend time protesting with or without the need for caring for her children. So instead of a job, she protests.

I can't find the article in any of the more reputable news services although it is apparently reprinted in just about a million sort of extremist publications both on and off line... like...
cageprinoners.com
prisonplanet.com
agonist.org
democraticunderground.com
 
White Horseradish said:
So, when exactly was she held by anyone? Or am I missing something?

She sat under a tree, a cop asked her some questions, gave her a piece of paper and left. Where did the "holding" happen?

Sounds like hype to drum up sales of the Independent.

It would appear that the policeman held her attention for more than a few moments. Since she could hardly leave without taking her attention with her, it seems reasonable (for a newspaper) to conclude that he was, in effect, holding her.

Hype to drum up sales? In an English newspaper? Surely you jest!
 
What happened there was a standard police enquiry on a member of the public, if the police stop and speak to you, they have to provide you with a form giving reasons why. The form also include the officers full details and the complaints procedure if you feel they acted unfairly.

Doesn't matter if you're outside Number '10' or not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top