September 06, 2007

BNP official arrested during campaign

Whitehaven police arrested a BNP official in King Street on Saturday.

The Copeland organiser for the BNP, Clive Jefferson, had been giving out BNP literature to town shoppers as part of the by-election campaign for the Copeland Council Harbour ward poll later this month.

Mr Jefferson was arrested after a member of the public alleged he had been threatening or abusive.

Police press spokesman Ben Meller confirmed to The News that: “A 40-year-old man from Cockermouth was arrested for an alleged Section 4 public order offence. There had been reports the BNP had set up a stall in King Street. We saw copies of the literature and it was not regarded as being of a racist or hate crime nature. However there was a complaint from a member of the public of that he had been threatened or abused by a person at the stall.”

He said the arrested man was released without charge but will have to return to Workington police station to answer bail on September 21.

Mr Jefferson later said: “The complainant was not a passive member of the public, he was aggressive and accused us of being fascists.”

Whitehaven News

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

United Against Fascim?

What does it take for you to see the irony in this item?

A member of the public is arrested purely on the say so of another...or purely because the arrested person is a member of a political party that is not well liked.

Would anyone else be arrested on these grounds alone?

If, say, I was to complain to the village bobby that the local vicar had been aggressive and abused me...would the police arrest the vicar without any other evidence?

I do not think so. But if I am wrong, then we are ALL in dire trouble.

Anonymous said...

'A member of the public is arrested purely on the say so of another'

And how would you have it otherwise? A person has to be arrested on someone's say-so.

'Would anyone else be arrested on these grounds alone?'

Yes. Breach of Section 5 of the Public Order Act covers behaviour that is intended to 'harass, distress or alarm'.

'If, say, I was to complain to the village bobby that the local vicar had been aggressive and abused me...would the police arrest the vicar without any other evidence?'

A vicar is generally a socially-responsible person.

Anonymous said...

"And how would you have it otherwise? A person has to be arrested on someone's say-so."

Don't be pathetic.

A police officer should only make an arrest on credible evidence.

"Yes. Breach of Section 5 of the Public Order Act covers behaviour that is intended to 'harass, distress or alarm'."

BUT NOT WITHOUT EVIDENCE OF SUCH BEHAVIOUR!

You are deliberately missing the point, because you cannot deal with it.

The evidence against the BNP person was the word of one other. If there were disinterested members of the public as witnesses to corroborate the complaint, then that is credible evidence.

But the report makes no reference to any other evidence whatsoever except the word of the complainant.

Further, the report refers to an accusation that the complainant is not disinterested, that he was openly hostile to the BNP.

While it is the right of anyone to be hostile to any political opinion/party, nobody has the right to have his word preferred against those he dislikes, just because he says so.

Evidence is required, well at least that used to be the case.

So how is any fair minded policeman to act when faced with a complaint that is initially totally unsupported?

He should make initial enquiries to see if he can find supporting evidence, not immediately arrest one party because he prefers the word of the other.

If the policeman cannot immediately find evidence, then when dealing with minor complaints, he should record the details of both parties and set about making more extensive enquiries.

"A vicar is generally a socially-responsible person."

So what?

It has been known, even for vicars, to have committed offences of various kinds.

Are you saying that BNP types are generally to be regarded as socially irresponsible and therefore always and inevitably unworthy of belief?

Just because they are in the BNP?

Just because they hold an opinion you do not like?

Where do you think that leads?

Who is safe from such an attitude?

Certainly not you, despite the police...at the moment...doing something you like.

What about tomorrow?

How will you oppose such a precedent if it is ever used against you?

Old Sailor said...

Is that wginging NUTZIE called "Anonymous" commenting about a case before the courts ?

If so should this not be refered to the CPS so that they can consider a case for action on contempt ?

Anonymous said...

"A police officer should only make an arrest on credible evidence."

Presumably the officer considered the evidence credible.