New Internationalist

To hold a banner is not a crime!

The imprisonment last week of student activist Edd Bauer for holding a banner on a bridge marks a disturbing escalation in the British police’s efforts to criminalize dissent. The news broke on 19 September that one of the three students arrested holding a banner on a bridge next to the Lib Dem conference venue had been refused bail and was being held on remand in HM Prison Birmingham.

His arrest is worrying enough: rarely, if ever, are activists arrested – let alone charged – for such a small and peaceful protest. This is, however, an escalation of the use extra-judicial punishment, presumption of guilt and use of arrest for political and intelligence-gathering purposes. In recommending that someone be denied bail and have their right to liberty taken from them because of their alleged membership of a group, the police have grossly stepped beyond their remit.

Edd Bauer

Edd Bauer.

A solicitor with more than 30 years’ experience commented, ‘This is utterly absurd. It is totally disproportionate and obviously political.’ He went on to say that whilst the offense, under Section 22a of the Road Traffic Act, can carry a maximum sentence of imprisonment, that would typically only apply in extreme cases.

The justification given for this disproportionate treatment was that Bauer’s ‘membership of a group’ meant he posed a serious risk to the public. That membership of a group is enough to incarcerate someone, regardless of what they may or may not have done (at the point of arrest under the British legal system you are technically still innocent until proven guilty) or what other members may have done is seriously worrying. I am a member of Greenpeace: since some of their members engage in illegal protest, does this mean I am liable to be imprisoned for holding a banner?

Bail would typically only be refused if there was significant risk of the defendant fleeing the country or if they posed significant risk to the public. Given that the alleged membership in question is either the National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts and/or UK Uncut, it is hard to understand how, due to Bauer’s alleged membership, he poses a ‘significant risk to the public’. Both of these organizations are peaceful in their words and actions.

There is a disturbing trend in detention of activists, with the police coming up with more and more obscure laws that allow them to arrest protesters. In previous years when police wanted to gather information from protesters they used stop and search powers. However, police were forced to pay fines for wrongful use of these powers at the Kingsnorth Camp for Climate Action. As activists became better educated about stop and search powers, police were unable to use them to gather intelligence on protesters. After a brief flirtation with Section 50 of the Police Reform Act, they seemed to decide it was easier to just arrest people, take their details and come up with a charge later on. It was made clear by a senior police officer after the mass arrest of protesters at Fortnum & Masons that the motivation for the arrest was to gather intelligence, even through deceit.

It now seems that the modus operandi is for police to make a decision, use any means necessary to enforce it, whether legal or not, and find a law to justify it later, regardless of how tenuous or unlikely a prosecution would be. This is how the Chinese police operate in Tibet, one of the most heavily oppressed countries in the world. The role of the police in Britain is to act in the interests of the public, not to save corporations and political parties from embarrassment.

In order for a genuine democratic process to exist in this country, of which protest is a cornerstone, the police need to drastically rethink their approach to policing protest. It is not a crime to hold a banner, it is not a crime to protest, it is not even a crime to embarrass a political party. It is a crime to silence dissent.

About 70 people gathered outside the court in Birmingham on 27 September when Edd Bauer – having spent 10 days in prison – again appeared before magistrates. This time he was granted bail – and will appear in court on trial in October. Meanwhile, he has been suspended indefinitely from his elected position of Vice-President of Education at Birmingham Guild of Students without disciplinary hearing or due process.

More details on the Banner drops are not a crime website.

Sign the petition to reinstate Edd here.

Comments on To hold a banner is not a crime!

Leave your comment


  • Maximum characters allowed: 5000
  • Simple HTML allowed: bold, italic, and links

Registration is quick and easy. Plus you won’t have to re-type the blurry words to comment!
Register | Login

  1. #1 Joe 28 Sep 11

    Great piece !!!

  2. #2 Mr Man 28 Sep 11

    To hold a banner is not a crime but to ’drop it’ above a busy road might be.

    Is it fair and reasonable to subsequently suggest this chap is a danger to the public a a basis of a decision to refuse bail?

    That a very important question!

  3. #3 Graham 28 Sep 11

    @Mr Man

    'dangerous' is very clearly specified in the act - as I'm sure you're aware. But the question of bail does not relate to this incident (remember the guilty until proven innocent thing).

    The point of this is that the person was deemed 'dangerous to society' because of their allegiances to other protest groups. And, as Pete make clear, these allegiances are to do with being involved in peaceful groups (in word and deed)

    Thus there is a question to be asked of the police as to whether they are clamping down on protest due to political reasons, or facilitating it? (The HMIC reports post G-20 said they should do the latter.)

    That is a very important question!

  4. #4 Mr B Bond 29 Sep 11


    So in England in 2011, would i be right in saying:

    A man could be deemed 'dangerous to society' because of their allegiances to a particular group? Again it boils down to what is dangerous and who analyses that to be the case i guess?

    In general terms a man is arrested for a crime and due to
    his declared membership of a particular organisation he gets treated differently from someone else with no open membership or known association?

    That all seems like a bit rubbish to me! Might someone seek something like a judicial review in this type of situation? Would that be appropriate? How would a person scrutinize or call into question a basis of judgement in English law which might be deemed unreasonable to a fair thinking man/woman?

    Get me a lawyer!

  5. #5 Graham 01 Oct 11

    Mr B Bond

    ’That all seems like a bit rubbish to me!’ - that was the point I was trying to make - that involvement in a political organisation meant this person got treated differently to others. That's political policing.

Subscribe to Comments for this articleArticle Comment Feed RSS 2.0

Guidelines: Please be respectful of others when posting your reply.

About the author

Pete Speller a New Internationalist contributor

Pete Speller is a video journalist, blogger and campaigner based in Oxford, UK. He works developing video and technology support for protests and justice movements, such as with the group Students for a Free Tibet where he worked supporting citizen journalists in Beijing during the 2008 Olympics.

Read more by Pete Speller

Get our free fortnightly eNews


Videos from visionOntv’s globalviews channel.

Related articles

Popular tags

All tags

New Internationalist Blogs

New Internationalist hosts several different blogs, from the Editor's Blog to the Majority World Blog, the Gaza Blog to the Books Blog

New Internationalist Blogs