Daily Mail helps out the government by telling its readers a massive lie

The Daily Mail would like you to believe rioters are walking free from court for refusing to give their names and addresses. They claim there has been a “mockery of justice” as the “riot suspects” were released.

However, the only mockery taking place is one of journalism.

The three people were among 50 arrested on the Million Mask march in November. And whilst the photos in the Mail show there was damage caused and clashes with the police, the people in question were not arrested for rioting or criminal damage, they were arrested under Section 50 of the Police Reform Act.

Section 50 gives the police the power to arrest someone if they refuse to give their name and address to the police, if the police have a reasonable suspicion they have committed antisocial behaviour. Whilst it is a criminal offence not to comply, it is only punishable by a fine – no custodial sentence can be given.

Protesters have long been critical of the use of Section 50 by the police given its use as a blanket power to collect personal details from people – details which can end up on a police file even when a person has not committed a criminal offence.

The Network for Police Monitoring (Netpol) who have been collating data on the use of Section 50 have criticised the use of these powers on demonstrations:

Any power which allows the police to ‘round up’ people engaged in political protest in order to demand their names and addresses under threat of arrest, is a serious and fundamental threat to civil rights and freedoms. Providing police with the ability to build personal profiles of political demonstrators is a dangerous step to take.

Read on...

According to Andy Meinke from the Legal Defence and Monitoring Group, who provide legal observers to monitor policing on protests, there has not been a test case on the use of Section 50. He asserts this is because the arresting officer would have to have a “reasonable suspicion” that a person has committed antisocial behaviour – in other words, acts which are likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress – actions which are covered by other public order legislation:

A stand alone case seems to invalidate the “reasonable belief” as if the constable had reasonable belief (a higher standard than the reasonable suspicion he would require to arrest for s5) why isn’t it being prosecuted?

Not co-operating with police tactics which repress civil liberties and the right to protest can be an effective tactic. Netpol claims that it is “almost always a very good idea for anyone to keep their name and address to themselves when dealing with police at demonstrations”. They also believe that:

The collective act of non-compliance is perhaps even more important. The more people resist it, the less workable the tactic becomes, and that has to be a good thing.

The three people arrested were ‘guilty’ of attending a demonstration, and refusing to give their details to the police when they were under no obligation to do so. There was no evidence they were involved in assaulting police, committing criminal damage, or any other act. They committed no criminal offence, and there was no suspicion they had committed antisocial behaviour. A spokesperson for the Crown Prosecution Service stated:

There was insufficient evidence that the police officers had reason to believe the defendants were acting in an anti-social manner so as to be able, in law, to demand their names. There was therefore insufficient evidence that the defendants had committed the offence by declining to give their names.

However, this has not stopped the Daily Mail labelling them as rioters or using this as an example of how the criminal justice system is failing. However, the only failure is in accountable honest journalism. Luckily, given those involved didn’t give their names, they haven’t had to bear the consequences to their private lives of unfounded allegations and lies.

Time and again, the tabloid press distorts, manipulates and twists the truth to enhance their right-wing political agenda. Every time this happens, it is important it is exposed. These papers have got away with peddling hate and ludicrous lies for far too long – it’s time they were held to account.

Featured image via Kerry-anne Mendoza

We need your help to keep speaking the truth

Every story that you have come to us with; each injustice you have asked us to investigate; every campaign we have fought; each of your unheard voices we amplified; we do this for you. We are making a difference on your behalf.

Our fight is your fight. You’ve supported our collective struggle every time you gave us a like; and every time you shared our work across social media. Now we need you to support us with a monthly donation.

We have published nearly 2,000 articles and over 50 films in 2021. And we want to do this and more in 2022 but we don’t have enough money to go on at this pace. So, if you value our work and want us to continue then please join us and be part of The Canary family.

In return, you get:

* Advert free reading experience
* Quarterly group video call with the Editor-in-Chief
* Behind the scenes monthly e-newsletter
* 20% discount in our shop

Almost all of our spending goes to the people who make The Canary’s content. So your contribution directly supports our writers and enables us to continue to do what we do: speaking truth, powered by you. We have weathered many attempts to shut us down and silence our vital opposition to an increasingly fascist government and right-wing mainstream media.

With your help we can continue:

* Holding political and state power to account
* Advocating for the people the system marginalises
* Being a media outlet that upholds the highest standards
* Campaigning on the issues others won’t
* Putting your lives central to everything we do

We are a drop of truth in an ocean of deceit. But we can’t do this without your support. So please, can you help us continue the fight?

The Canary Support us

Comments are closed