![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Two-Thirty
Jul. 3rd, 2008 11:37 amYou know that, when the dentist says: "you might want to take some Nurofen tonight and tomorrow", that you are likely to be in for a pretty unpleasant time. As lines go, it's on a par with "you might experience a little discomfort here".
And so, when I heard those words after the fitting of the lower brace on Tuesday, I was not looking forward to the next couple of days.
Unusually, the main area of aching came from the upper teeth, with the strain on the two back left teeth charged with dragging the canine down its final quarter of an inch, causing protests on a par with a hairy cat being presented with the opportunity to take a large bath.
The bottom teeth at the front are merely reacting with a minor moan when I try to eat.
Indeed, eating is a process requiring significant preparation and willpower. If I don't lose weight over the next couple of days, I doubt that I ever will again.
_____________
Nothing exemplifies the dichotomy of "freedom" and "safety" than Devon & Cornwall Constabulary's response to a planned Facebook-organized party on Torbay beach.
At the heart of this lies a philosophical problem for the police. Just what are they for? Are they there to uphold the law? Or is their purpose something greater? I make no moral judgments here. I just observe that the police themselves (or, rather the Devon & Cornwall Constabulary and the police commander of Torbay) seem to have a view that the function of the police is not to uphold the law, but to uphold "order". These are subtly different concepts.
The problem arose when Facebook became abuzz with a planned gathering at Torbay beach. This brought a reaction not far from sheer panic at Devon & Cornwall police, and their first move was to threaten to apply for a 24-hour alcohol ban throughout Torbay (i.e., use the media rather than the courts). I'm not sure what this was meant to achieve, apart from piss off publicans and shopkeepers, but it was enough to bring the matter to national attention. In essence, the police wanted to do something about it because here was a public event over which they had no control. And the police hate the concept of that. It contravenes their concept of "order". Any gathering needs to be organised.
Unfortunately, there's no law in the UK that states this has to be the case. The law in question is the Public Order Act of 1986. This refders to all marches as "processions" and gatherings as "assemblies".
Now, this is where it gets interesting and you have to wonder whether English law might be treading close to contravening the European Convention of Human Rights. The 1986 Act defines a public assembly as being of 20 persons or more. However, the Anti Social Behaviour Act of 2003 (Section 59) reduces this number from 20 to, er, two. Yup, if you and your mate are standing in a park talking about the weather, this constitutes a gathering that is subject to the Public Order Act.
Wat rights do the Police have under this legislation? Well, quite a lot, actually. Prior to 1994, although the police had a power under the Public Order Act to impose conditions on static assemblies, and to use their general legal powers to preserve the peace to stop an assembly from taking place, there was no formal power to prohibit assemblies in advance.
This wasn't good enough for the police, so in 1994 we got sections 70 and 71 of the Criminal Justice & Public Order Act. Trying to avoid the legalese into which any discussion of the law tends to fall, this essentially gave a police officer power to apply to the council to ban a "trespassory assembly", consent to which needed to be signed by the Home Secretary.
But none of this seems to apply to a beach party. Indeed, the legal grounds for Chief Supt Chris Singer saying that "This planned event is an illegal gathering and there are serious concerns for public safety," strike me as spurious. It isn't a demonstration, it isn't a trespassory assembly, and it could only be defined as "riot" if "12 or more persons who are present together use or threaten unlawful violence for a common purpose, where the conduct of those persons (taken together) would cause a person of reasonable firmness to fear for his personal safety" (1986 Act, section 1).
All of this is irrelevant in practical terms, because the organisers of the event caved, and cancelled the party. Which is a pity. Because although the D&C Constabulary threatened to apply for an alcohol ban, they didn't actualy do so. And although Singer said that it was an illegal gathering, he didn't say exactly why or how. If it had been tested in the courts (and, if the courts had backed the police, if it had been taken to the European Court of Human Rights) we might have got a decent ruling on what are and what are not the rights of peaceful assembly on public property.
______________________
And so, when I heard those words after the fitting of the lower brace on Tuesday, I was not looking forward to the next couple of days.
Unusually, the main area of aching came from the upper teeth, with the strain on the two back left teeth charged with dragging the canine down its final quarter of an inch, causing protests on a par with a hairy cat being presented with the opportunity to take a large bath.
The bottom teeth at the front are merely reacting with a minor moan when I try to eat.
Indeed, eating is a process requiring significant preparation and willpower. If I don't lose weight over the next couple of days, I doubt that I ever will again.
_____________
Nothing exemplifies the dichotomy of "freedom" and "safety" than Devon & Cornwall Constabulary's response to a planned Facebook-organized party on Torbay beach.
At the heart of this lies a philosophical problem for the police. Just what are they for? Are they there to uphold the law? Or is their purpose something greater? I make no moral judgments here. I just observe that the police themselves (or, rather the Devon & Cornwall Constabulary and the police commander of Torbay) seem to have a view that the function of the police is not to uphold the law, but to uphold "order". These are subtly different concepts.
The problem arose when Facebook became abuzz with a planned gathering at Torbay beach. This brought a reaction not far from sheer panic at Devon & Cornwall police, and their first move was to threaten to apply for a 24-hour alcohol ban throughout Torbay (i.e., use the media rather than the courts). I'm not sure what this was meant to achieve, apart from piss off publicans and shopkeepers, but it was enough to bring the matter to national attention. In essence, the police wanted to do something about it because here was a public event over which they had no control. And the police hate the concept of that. It contravenes their concept of "order". Any gathering needs to be organised.
Unfortunately, there's no law in the UK that states this has to be the case. The law in question is the Public Order Act of 1986. This refders to all marches as "processions" and gatherings as "assemblies".
Now, this is where it gets interesting and you have to wonder whether English law might be treading close to contravening the European Convention of Human Rights. The 1986 Act defines a public assembly as being of 20 persons or more. However, the Anti Social Behaviour Act of 2003 (Section 59) reduces this number from 20 to, er, two. Yup, if you and your mate are standing in a park talking about the weather, this constitutes a gathering that is subject to the Public Order Act.
Wat rights do the Police have under this legislation? Well, quite a lot, actually. Prior to 1994, although the police had a power under the Public Order Act to impose conditions on static assemblies, and to use their general legal powers to preserve the peace to stop an assembly from taking place, there was no formal power to prohibit assemblies in advance.
This wasn't good enough for the police, so in 1994 we got sections 70 and 71 of the Criminal Justice & Public Order Act. Trying to avoid the legalese into which any discussion of the law tends to fall, this essentially gave a police officer power to apply to the council to ban a "trespassory assembly", consent to which needed to be signed by the Home Secretary.
But none of this seems to apply to a beach party. Indeed, the legal grounds for Chief Supt Chris Singer saying that "This planned event is an illegal gathering and there are serious concerns for public safety," strike me as spurious. It isn't a demonstration, it isn't a trespassory assembly, and it could only be defined as "riot" if "12 or more persons who are present together use or threaten unlawful violence for a common purpose, where the conduct of those persons (taken together) would cause a person of reasonable firmness to fear for his personal safety" (1986 Act, section 1).
All of this is irrelevant in practical terms, because the organisers of the event caved, and cancelled the party. Which is a pity. Because although the D&C Constabulary threatened to apply for an alcohol ban, they didn't actualy do so. And although Singer said that it was an illegal gathering, he didn't say exactly why or how. If it had been tested in the courts (and, if the courts had backed the police, if it had been taken to the European Court of Human Rights) we might have got a decent ruling on what are and what are not the rights of peaceful assembly on public property.
______________________
