British state steps up repression of growing education protests
The past 12 months have seen a clear rise in the numbers of protests by opponents of the Con-Dem’s austerity-focused education cuts - including the Millbank occupation, the November-December 2010 student protests over £9k tuition fees and the abolition of EMA, and the protests at the TUC’s March for the Alternative in March 2011. In response, the police and judiciary are getting increasingly tough in an attempt to repress any form of opposition.
A recent article in Socialist Worker charts some of the most recent and shocking sentences:
Omar Ibrahim was sentenced to 18 months for throwing a spent toy smoke bomb.
Omar writes here in the Guardian in response to the sentence – “My crime? Throwing a joke-shop smoke bomb that I found on the pavement in the direction of Top Shop during the TUC protest on 26 March. Silly? Yes. Serious? No, not least because my throwing shoulder has been dislocated more than 40 times as a result of epilepsy. … We should all be worried: my heavy sentence, the first of protesters from recent marches to plead not guilty, is indicative of the way in which the English police, courts and government are heavily criminalising those who step out of line, however proximate that line has become.”
Oguz Ornek, now 19, was also sent to prison for 18 months, convicted of violent disorder, after the 14 November student protest in Whitehall.
The remaining custodial sentences were for people on the protest at the Tory party HQ at Millbank on 10 November last year.
Sussex university student Zenofon Mitchell Kotsakis, 20, was given 15 months in a youth offenders’ institution for throwing two light placard sticks.
Demi Wilson Smith, 19, was given 10 months for shouting at police and waving a stick towards them.
Benjamin Sunderland was sentenced to 12 months for jabbing at an already broken window with a chair and a stick.
Judge Tapping spoke of “deterrent sentencing” and accused the young people of discrediting the cause they were protesting about.
Another six people received non-custodial sentences.
These included Bryan Simpson, 23, who was charged with affray after the Millbank protests. He received a four-month prison sentence, suspended for 12 months and 120 hours unpaid work. Bryans parents and many supporters had travelled from Glasgow and filled in the public gallery
Agit Goztas, now 19, received an eight-month sentence suspended for 18 months, 90 hours community service and £350 costs to the prosecution. His crime was a single kick to a wire fence.
Samuel Fowler, 27, was given 150 hours community service after police arrested him on 26 March TUC demonstration with two non-permanent marker pens and some superglue. He was charged with having an article with the intent to cause damage. The police had not seen him use the pens to damage any property.
Jack Coulthard and Sahin Tasyurdu, both 17 at the time, were charged with violent disorder from another student protest on 9 December.
Jack’s barrister stressed that the police had not accused Jack of being violent towards any persons, even though that is what the charge of violent disorder is for. Judge Dodgson replied, “I’m beginning to wonder why he pleaded guilty.” His barrister added that police had interviewed Jack without a solicitor present. He was told to complete over 100 hours community service.
The defence barrister told the court how Sahin relied on EMA. “£30 a week is vital for Sahin to pay for books and materials needed to complete his college course.” The court heard how Sahin has severe dyslexia but has persevered with his education. He was given an eight-month prison term suspended for two years and a curfew between 9pm and 7am for three months.
It’ll be interesting to see how harsh the courts are with the fortnum and mason defendents if they are found guilty (the first trial begins this week, and ends towards the end of the month). The Fortnum and Mason case details can be followed at http://fortnum145.org/
Further, ahead of the 9 November student demonstration to be held in London against £9k University fees, the London Metropolitan Police have threatened to use rubber bullets in order to control dissenting students. This has prompted a response from the National Coalition Against Fees and Cuts, which is organising the demonstration, to label the police position as ‘a deeply cynical attempt to pre-criminalise protest’. The NCAFC statement continued, ‘It is irresponsible for the police to use press conferences to ramp up the fear of violence – which in any case has in the past come overwhelmingly from themselves – thereby increasing the likelihood of it taking place.’ In a further instance of pre-criminalisation, the police have sent letters to some of the Fortnum & Mason defendants (see left) threatening them that anyone ‘near an outbreak of violence’ should not ‘stand and watch’ and that they ‘should not involve yourself in any type of criminal or anti-social behaviour’, the repsonse of the police to which will be to ‘at the earliest opportunity arrest and place you before the court’. Further, the police continue, this ‘could impact on employment and educadtional opportunities, your ability to travel abroad and applications for insurance cover’. It would appear, then, that the police are openly seeking to threaten a spurious arrest in an attempt to damage the employment and educational opportunities of anyone who even looks at a protest! It clearly begs the question of what exactly the state, police and judiciary are so scared of that they feel the need to ramp up the repression of education protests so dramatically. The answer, as Edd Bauer (himself facing a trial and already having spent 10 days in prison for hanging a banner over a bridge protesting Nick Clegg’s £9k tuition fees policy) puts it, is that ‘direct action is the only thing that the government will take seriously – that is why it comes down so hard.‘
All protesters need to be aware that the police cannot be trusted to act scrupulously in policing protesters. With sufficient legal awareness, however, it is sometimes possible to challenge these dubious practices. On Monday 31 October, two charges against protesters were dropped when video evidence of the SOAS protests that took place in June showed that, rather than a police officer being attacked by protesters (which had been claimed) it was in fact the police officer who initiated an altercation and then pinned the protester to the ground. “Five arrests were instigated by primarily one police officer who basically lied,” said Peters (one of the defendants) in an interview. Peters believes he has good grounds for bringing a case against the police for malicious prosecution and said he and the other acquitted parties will be seeking legal advice in this matter.
Another legal success was witnessed on 7 November, when “Dave”, a Millbank protester acting with the support of the Green & Black Cross, got cleared of Violent Disorder, avoiding years of prison. He had a good lawyer, pleaded not guilty, and had plenty of support in the public gallery. This took place in Kingston Crown Court and was the second person to plead NOT guilty out of very many who plead guilty. The jury took 26 minutes to let him walk free. This was a real, real result, and a very good sign that indicates the tone of public opinion and sets some sort of precedent for the scores and scores of people still to be sentenced.
