Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Essex Police Arrest Man Over Blackberry Water Fight Plan

Posted by samzenpus on from the watch-how-you-play dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Under the banner headline 'Police reassure residents they are working to keep county safe,' Essex police proudly proclaimed that they arrested a 20-year-old man from Colchester who 'allegedly sent messages from a Blackberry encouraging people to join in a water fight.' Having also made a number of arrests of people sitting at home on Facebook, Acting Assistant Chief Constable Mason wrote: 'Police will continue to monitor social networking sites for unlawful activity.'" That's some good police work there, Lou.

12 of 158 comments (clear)

  1. Just Protecting Him From Himself by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 4, Funny

    The police are just looking out for the man's interests. If he took his Blackberry to a water fight it could get wet and be ruined and it would just end in tears (which he would hide by getting wet again). They saved his Blackberry to tweet/text/post another day.

  2. England by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    They're really determined to become Airstrip One, aren't they?

    1. Re:England by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Unfortunately the police have figured out how to deal with peaceful protests. All they have to do is surround a small group of protesters, force them into a corner, and keep them there until someone does something stupid. Then wait for the media to get a few juicy shots of the "violence" which can be repeated over and over on TV.

      This is partly the reason why the riots got so out of hand: These tactics don't work *at all* if everyone shows up looking for trouble.

  3. Compensation by Andy+Smith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is an age-old debate but in my opinion there needs to be significant compensation for arrests that don't lead to convictions. Even more so if the arrest doesn't even lead to a charge.

    The way things are at the moment, people who are wrongly arrested are expected to see their eventual release as a "relief" and be thankful for it. That's not how it should be. Otherwise the police had might as well arrest and hold everyone, take their time investigating all of them, and then release everyone who didn't do anything wrong.

    In the venn diagram of arrests and convictions the target intersection is 100%. Currently it is nowhere near 100% and that is not entirely due to a flawed court system, it is partially due to too many innocent people being arrested.

    1. Re:Compensation by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Did you see the famous civil rights marchers in the US south whining when they got arrested or demanding compensation?

      No, but they should have. They deserved compensation for the terrible treatment they endured under color of authority.

      If you allow significant compensation for this sort of arrest I can guarantee you that people will be out in greater numbers trying to get arrested and doing their best to piss off a cop as their chance to get some cash.

      With today's technology, this isn't such a problem. Cops should wear helmets with cameras at all times; what the cop sees, the camera sees. If some hooligans are out causing trouble, and the cops arrest them, no problem: they have video evidence against them, placing them at the scene and showing their actions. If there's thousands of people rioting, video showing a person in the rioting crowd, and that same person being whacked by cops with batons and arrested, is sufficient to show that the cops acted properly. If they just bring in some random guy with bruises and claim he was rioting, but have no video of his actions or his takedown and arrest, then the cops have done something wrong.

      This video evidence should also be made immediately available to the public as soon as technically possible (e.g. when the cop gets to the station and turns in his memory card for the day), in case any interested citizens want to keep a watch on the cops. This type of system can serve to protect both the cops from false allegations, and potential victims of police abuse, and also to repair the public's distrust of cops.

  4. What was illegal here? by dbc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Does he not have the freedom of assembly? Does he not have the freedom to call for an assembly? What part of a water fight is not legal? If he was planning a non-crime, then what is the pre-crime? Can you be arrested for a pre-crime in England?

    1. Re:What was illegal here? by Grumbleduke · · Score: 3

      Does he not have the freedom of assembly?

      Yep, he has that. Although it can be restricted.

      Does he not have the freedom to call for an assembly?

      Probably covered by the above.

      What part of a water fight is not legal?

      Well, it could be some sort of offence against the person (would certainly be battery, if there was no consent). Then you have all those lovely "breach of the peace" or "affray" things that the police love to (often incorrectly) apply when they want to round someone up. They could also go with s127 Communications Act 2003 (as with the Twitter Joke Trial) if they can show that calling for a water fight is "menacing".

      Can you be arrested for a pre-crime in England?

      Of course you can - planning, or conspiracy to do a crime is arrestable most places.

      Times like this I wish I was a lawyer already....

  5. Intelligence gathering on the police themselves by J'raxis · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So this storiy is basically a tacit admission either that:---

    Blackberry and Facebook are doing realtime or near-realtime surveillance of users and sending suspicious information to the British police; or

    The British police are capable of, and are, listening in on Blackberry or Facebook* without the co-operation of these corporationsi i.e., they're surveilling network traffic or similar. Facebook is entirely conducted through HTTPS nowadays, so if this be the case, that the bobbies can listen in is an even more significant revelation.

    * This conclusion wouldn't hold of course if the police are merely trolling through what people post in public on Facebook, which is entirely a possibility considering how ignorant many people are about discretion and privacy.

    --
    Liberty in your lifetime
    1. Re:Intelligence gathering on the police themselves by rocket+rancher · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So this storiy is basically a tacit admission either that:---

      Blackberry and Facebook are doing realtime or near-realtime surveillance of users and sending suspicious information to the British police; or

      The British police are capable of, and are, listening in on Blackberry or Facebook* without the co-operation of these corporationsi i.e., they're surveilling network traffic or similar. Facebook is entirely conducted through HTTPS nowadays, so if this be the case, that the bobbies can listen in is an even more significant revelation.

      * This conclusion wouldn't hold of course if the police are merely trolling through what people post in public on Facebook, which is entirely a possibility considering how ignorant many people are about discretion and privacy.

      Well, there is a third possibility. It is entirely possible a friend of a friend got invited to the water fight, and decided to fuck over his mate by showing the local constable selected bits of the original invitation. No need to postulate that level of surveillance by the police when simple human maliciousness is available...

  6. Re:Water fight deaths in 2008? by MozeeToby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How many deaths were caused by people crossing the street at appropriate crosswalks and with the traffic lights? Better make that illegal. How many deaths playing football in after work leagues? Better make that illegal. How many deaths falling out of bed? Better make that illegal!

    I don't say this often, because I try to be generally polite even on the internet, but your logic is retarded. It is what leads to kids not being able to play tag during recess. It is the levels of paranoia that makes an adult male hesitate to help a terrified child because someone might think that they are trying to kidnap them. It is a significant portion of what is wrong with our society: the idea that everything and everyone can, and should, be made as completely safe as possible, regardless of the consequences.

    And just so we're absolutely clear, I'd rather live in a world where one or two people die having a water fight than live in a world where someone can arrest an adult for planning a water fight.

  7. The ECHR protects freedom of Assembly in England by vorlich · · Score: 4, Informative

    Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Under article 11. Since there are two different systems of Law in The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the European Convention on Human Rights is the final adjudication on this. So he can go to a water fight - however the possibility that a water fight could affect the "peace" it could be restricted on the grounds of possible public safety. In Scotland, which is the country with a different legal system, the possibility that a "water fight" could get out of hand would be classed as "intent to commit a breach of the peace". However a regular water fight in a sensible location would be hardly fall into that category.

    However this is all academic because it appears to come from a collection of stories in today's Colchester gazette where it reports that a man was arrested for trying to organise a thousand strong water fight in the town centre or 'inciting public disorder.'http://mobile.gazette-news.co.uk/news/9194795.Man_charged_after_allegedly_trying_to_organise_a_mass_water_fight/
    I'm reasonably certain that if their is any truth in the story, the local constabulary would have to take it seriously and avoid charges of complacency.The story appears to have been drawn from the Monday morning court calendar - the normal source of news on a Monday morning. The same report mentions another man, posting on facebook, one assumes he is the main feature of this post and he was released without charge.

    --
    Posts, MyBio or Sig, may contain satire, sarcasm, bolded nouns be sardonic or even witty & be Church of SD
  8. Re:huh? by jklovanc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Any assembly over a certain number requires a permit because the following needs to be done;
    1. Extra policing arranged in case things get out of hand.
    2. Extra clean up to deal with the mass of garbage left behind by many people.
    3. Extra paramedics to deal with injuries.
    4. Restroom facilities for such a large number of people.
    5. Blocking off streets so people do not get run over.

    The article is also misleading in showing two people with small water pistols. What was being organized was hundreds, if not thousands, of people converging in downtown public streets to in effect take over the area and have a water fight. Any business in their right mind would close their doors to protect themselves from the mayhem. Don't the shops and business have a right to do business? Who will pay for the policing, Who will pay for the cleanup? Who will pay for damages?

    A water fight is not illegal; hundreds of people taking over a city centre without proper planning and a permit for what ever reason, even a water fight, is illegal.