'Arrest' at the AGM

[Joe K]

Hopefully, this will work.

Note that as I was wrongfully arrested, over a matter which the chairman should have dealt with, this is going to make for interesting times in the run-up to the local elections...



Mr 'Show's over' is PC 2142, Phil Hopkins, who, as well as 'arresting' me without reading me my rights, then banged my head on the floor three or four times, before standing on my arm as I was pinned to the floor.

Sorry about the angle.

[Joe K]

One thing I ought to add is that I had no intention of videoing any policeman when I raised my phone. I had the notion of taking a pic of the document on the table in front, crumpled because a PC had wrestled it off me, that had started the whole fuss. The police seemed to rush me when they saw the phone, though, and I knew I'd never sit down again if I stood up, so I remembered other people who did video police in similar situations, and switched to film instead. It didn't work so well for me, perhaps because they'd already determined, however rashly, to try to arrest me.

[Joe K]

If anyone is curious about the details (well, I know some people are), my statement might help:

The events in question occurred at the Barton & Tredworth Neighbourhood Partnership's annual general meeting, held on Wednesday, April 18th, at 6:30pm. From the very beginning, I was conscious of antipathy towards me by the chairman, possibly because he felt that as former secretary, I should have presented the minutes for the last AGM earlier than 2pm that day, but as the partnership hasn't recognised my status as secretary for several months now, I actually had no obligation at all, and his real grumble was surely that the minutes confirmed that the last AGM wasn't quorate, invalidating the revised constitution. But I'd told him this on the 23rd of March, in plenty of time for him to do something about it.

In any case, the meeting moved on until the financial report, where it was revealed, and it was certainly news to me, that a football tournament had been held by the youth group. I wished to know how much this set of events had cost so, as discreetly as possible, I picked up from the officers' table in front of me a document which detailed the partnership's spending. I might as well have overturned the table. The chairman demanded that I put the document back. I said that I needed to read it. People said that I could read it at the end of the meeting. I said that I needed to read it now. Someone said that if I were allowed to read the document, it would be disrespectful to the person who had just tried to snatch the papers from my hand as he approached the table to give his own report. No comment.

Then the two police officers at the back of the room got involved. I would have to return the document. If I did not, they would have to remove me from the premises. One of them, PC Damian Lea*, then tried to pull the document from my grip, against my will, tearing it in the process. This wasn't enough, though. I was asked by the chairman to leave the meeting. I declined. The chairman suspended the meeting, which he has the power to do. Now the two police officers wanted me to leave, and were threatening me with arrest if I didn't. I asserted that I was sitting quietly at a public meeting, and had already given an undertaking to behave.

At that point, back-up arrived in the form of PC Phil Hopkins (2142), who, knowing nothing of the circumstances up to that point, claimed that the 'show' was 'over', and demanded that I leave. Moments later, he 'arrested' me, but did not read me my rights, then, with the help of his colleagues, manhandled me to the floor, before grabbing a fistful of my hair and banging my head on the ground three or four times and then standing on my arm with most of his weight. My arm is still stiff over four days later. Somebody, though I'm not sure who, wrenched from my hand the mobile phone I had taken out for an entirely different reason but switched to recording video when all three officers rapidly approached me. The case of the phone has been cracked on one side.

After being taken out of the building, I was driven to Barton Police Station, where I was 'de-arrested' by PC Hopkins for Section 5 and then arrested (sitting in the back of the police van) for 'breach of the peace', and read my rights. Though I had complained since getting into the van that the cuffs on my left wrist were too tight, I had to wait until being taken to the custody suite at Bearlands before they were loosened, and finally removed, some ten minutes later.

The police were at no point invited by anyone at the meeting to take action against me. They invoked the usual justification of Section 5, but could have simply asked if anyone in the room felt ' harrassed, distressed or alarmed', and yet did not. Damian Lea even argued that I was culpable of the 'theft' of a piece of property belonging to the partnership chairman, Philip Lowery, yet I am a member of the partnership too, and had as much right to the 'property' in question. In fact, the person who tried to snatch it away from me as I sat back to read it, Bren McInerney, is not a resident, and no-one suggested that his action might have caused distress or alarm. Nor that Philip Lowery, in making such a huge fuss over a few pages, created the real commotion in the room, and perpetuated it with his suspension of the meeting.

Yet while the correct partnership procedure (even if invoked for the wrong reasons, and having such unforeseen consequences) of suspending the meeting temporarily was taken, the police were then allowed to take actions without any consultation with the chairman (unless these actions were agreed on prior to the meeting). In truth, I believe Section 5 only applies properly in a truly public situation, where there is no single person with responsibility for maintaining order amongst a group gathered for a common purpose.

I was up for nomination for the position of chairman or, at the very least, committee member. Because of my detention, the elections went ahead without me, no doubt to the delight of some members, but this is directly a consequence of the heavyhanded actions of the police. I hope that Gloucestershire Constabulary will make this clear to the partnership, so that those elections can be reviewed. I harbour no great ill-feeling against Damian Lea (who seemed embarrassed about my predicament in the custody suite) or Matt Puttock, and am happy to work with them in the future.

Phil Hopkins is a very different matter. He, it seems to me, enjoys using his position to inflict pain and suffering on members of the public, and should be kept off 'the beat', if not off the force. I would be surprised if this is the first time a complaint has been registered about him. If it isn't, I hope somebody starts to take the hint.

In order to conduct an investigation of these events, the constabulary will need to obtain the attendance sheet for the meeting. It may become apparent that the number of residents in attendance was below the 20 required to constitute a quorum and allow the meeting to go ahead at all. If this was the case, the chairman will share some of the blame for my injuries.

Thanks for your time,

Joe Kilker

P.S. although it was the opinion of my wife that an arrest without immediate reading of rights was unlawful, I have checked and believe this is not necessarily the case. This is not to say that I believe my arrest was legitimate, for reasons already outlined, re the nature of the 'public' who were present, but I do not claim that I was technically subjected to wrongful arrest.


*Most links say 'Damian', but 'Damien' is probably correct.

Edit: I know now, from councillor Usman Bhaimia, that the elections did not go ahead, because the meeting was not quorate. It stands to reason, therefore, that no vote could have been taken to call for my departure, even if it had been seconded, but it would have been better for my left elbow and wrist, which have still not recovered, if someone had checked the registration form at the start. I hope that if we discover that the next attempt, on May 30th, is also inquorate, there won't be endless faffing about on the theme of 'we can't make any decisions, but we'll still have a discussion (but not write any minutes)' (popularised by the Trust Centre committee*). Meeting inquorate - meeting postponed. End of.

* accounts now 38 days overdue.

[Joe K]

Now Youtube have apparently removed my clip on the grounds that it violates their terms (though plenty of other vids of the police at work manage to stay on), I've uploaded it to another site. just to remind people, it's the look of sheer piggy joy on the face of Ismail Mehter that really stands out.

bartred.webs.com/apps/forums/topics/show/7630674-arrest-at-the-agm

I've emailed Ismael Rhyman, just a few hours ago, for info about how the AGM turned out, if it was quorate*. When I get an answer, I'll publish that information.

*and at the risk of boring people, it still needed 20 residents to be quorate, because the last one wasn't, so the proposed 10 resident amendment didn't stick...

[Joe K]

I got my reply from Ismael Rhyman three days later (though, to be fair, that was Monday, and I wouldn't have expected much during the weekend). He said no elections had been held. I then had a visit from Usman Bhaimia, due to the elections, who asked if he could do anything for me. I asked if he could find out more abou what happened at the AGM, and a day or so later, he told me it had been inquorate, and was being held again on May 30th.

From another source, I've found that there won't be a new nominations process, just me and anyone else whose name was up before. Still, wouldn't it have been better if somone had thought to count the number of residents present when the meetin started, rather than losing control of the meeting to a psychotic copper?

The 'local resolution' process, incidentally, ended this afternoon, at 5:15pm, with PS Karen Horsley informing me that after 'assertaining' events from the officers involved, and six witnesses, including the chairman, vice chairman, youth Action Group leader and big mouth who is gouging the partnership for MYUK, and the person who was supposed to be organising the AGM, she had come to the conclusion that the arrest was carried out properly and justifiably. She even said that it was perfectly acceptable for an officer to bang a detainee's head against a floor, and that it was Hopkin's knee on my arm, not his foot. That latter bit actually makes sense, if my right arm was pulled behind me as I lay on my right side, but I defy anyone to tell me that the resulting bruise was caused by a knee, rather than the sole of a police boot. At the risk of sounding like a masochist, maybe I should invite Hopkins to demonstrate his knee technique, in front of neutral witnesses, on my other arm?

As those six witnesses all, supposedly, said that the 'arrest' was justified (because taking a document off a table, and refusing to leave a meeting when asked to, are obviously arrestable offences), I guess the 30th is going to be an experience. I am going to try to get a copy of the document made available to everyone before the meeting, online. It was really quite unacceptable that people should be asked to approve the financial report on the understanding that they could only look at the document at the 'end of the meeting'.

Watch this space.

[Joe K]

Plenty of vacillation from the police.

Just figured out the reason for the de-arrest/re-arrest, though. Pretty sickening. Section 5 wouldn't hold water, but me shouting to the people in the room, 'You are letting this happen!!' was their 'breach of the peace'.

You really couldn't make it up. Award for those officers, please. Loophole Of The Year.

[Joe K]

I've been meaning to put this up for a while, since someone posted it (rather spammily, actually, because it was off topic) to Guido Fawkes' blog. Some may say it's not relevant here, either, but here's the thing... As rude as one might argue the Christian fundamentalists are being with their banners, who should the police be arresting in this scenario? In actuality, though, whose basic human rights are being restricted in deference to mob rule?

[Joe K]

Apr 24, 2012 8:14:01 GMT Joe K said:

P.S. although it was the opinion of my wife that an arrest without immediate reading of rights was unlawful, I have checked and believe this is not necessarily the case. This is not to say that I believe my arrest was legitimate, for reasons already outlined, re the nature of the 'public' who were present, but I do not claim that I was technically subjected to wrongful arrest.

I'd just like to clarify that although I withdraw the claim of being techically subjected to wrongful arrest above, I continued, all along, to assert that my arrest was wrongful (false) on the grounds that it wasn't justified by the circumstances, and the excuses offered by police, and supported by 'witnesses', don't stack up.

Gloucestershire Constabulary, though, have dismissed my call for the officers involved to be charged with false arrest and bodily harm (I'm setting about acquiring the hospital report today), and when I persist with my arguments they, and the IPCC, dismiss my requests as 'vexatious'. Phil Hopkins, though, was recorded by me in the custody suite being extremely verbally abusive, and he's up before a panel for misconduct in March.

This begs the question, though, of why custody suites have video cameras but not, apparently, microphones? How much abuse do people in custody regularly experience that never gets picked up on? Do police sometimes goad detainees into aggressive behaviour which the cameras do pick up? Shouldn't all interactions with the police be recorded, aural as well as visual?

[Deleted]

There's an interesting article in today's Citizen, about a man called John Ford, whose leg was broken very badly whilst in police custody. As I remember it, the headline implied that it was the police at Bearlands who broke it, but the headline on the same article on TiG says that he broke it himself whilst in police custody. The two claims aren't quite the same. Actually, the TiG article does mention that the incident happened while he was being restrained, so that adds weight to the theory that the police were heavy-handed, to say the least.

[Joe K]

I would love to believe that in general, police are as upstanding as a lot of people still seem to believe, but my personal experience, with scant exception, has been that they are all pretty bad apples, incompetent if not downright bent.

I've started a hashtag on Twitter, #corruptcopsuk, to invite other tweeters to name officers they've had trouble with. I think this will be the year, what with the Hillsborough enquiry and everything else, that we take out the trash...

Read more: trollhunterx.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=6&page=1#ixzz2JjkkBx3l

[Deleted]

You'd better watch your step. Someone, who I am not yet at liberty to name, claims that the BTNP have had "private" discussions about you and your supposed "criminal activities". Yipes!

[Joe K]

Well, Yippee Ki Yay to that, I say. Is fraud a 'criminal activity'? Because I have proof of BTNP officers committing that, and that proof justifies the 'activity' they are probably referring to...

Let's just look at the Wiki definition of fraud:

In criminal law, fraud is intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual

Of course, we should never rule out incompetence, but it would have to be on a staggering level to explain the degree and variety of untruths spread about me. And I believe slander/libel works whether the deception is intentional or not.

Either way, I feel pretty comfortable about my defence against such charges, if anyone has the guts to press them.

[Deleted]

Yes, fraud is a crime. Of course, as it is a crime, it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and it would be either difficult or impossible for a private individual to bring a prosecution. However, if you have clear evidence of fraud, then that would be an absolute defence against a suit for slander/libel/defamation, should anyone have deep enough pockets to start such a case.

In the last few years, I've had to tell a number of people to go ahead punk, make my day, because they have threatened me with a suit for slander/libel/defamation. The last time was less than two days ago...

[Deleted]

By the way, I wouldn't recommend trying to start a suit for slander/libel/defamation yourself. It's a mug's game unless you are famous and rich and the person that you are suing is rich enough to pay your legal expenses if you win.

[Joe K]

As you suggested above, Kay, I do see it more as a defence against any action someone might be foolish enough to bring against me.

The police and everybody else in positions of authority have bent over backwards in the past few years to find reasons not to take action on my behalf, but if the likes of Phil Lowery play this card, my 'activities' are like the faced down 'trap' card in Yugi Oh, waiting to be activated. In a world where being technically right means so little now, the sheer extent of constitutional abuse by the older committee members should count for more than a 'violation' of the DPA which began as a means of creating accurate minutes, and ended up cataloguing how, in their arrogance, people in both the BTNP, and the BTCT, simply made up rules and said they were in the respective constitutions.

They can complain that the boy who pointed out that the king is in the altogether has brought the partnership into 'disrepute', but that won't put cloth on their pallid flesh. I'll take my chances with the lumbering law, such as it is, and I think they're pretty good chances.