From: hex@unseen.ac.am 
  
 On 19/09/2025 21:55, Roger Hayter wrote: 
 > On 19 Sep 2025 at 19:34:28 BST, "Norman Wells"  wrote: 
 > 
 >> On 19/09/2025 14:33, JNugent wrote: 
 >>> On 19/09/2025 07:40 AM, Norman Wells wrote: 
  
 >> They are supposed to have reasonable suspicion of a breach of the peace, 
 >> not decide arbitrarily to stop anything they don't like. 
  
 >>>>   More likely any arrest and/or prosecution would be under the 
 >>>> very wide provisions of Section 78 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and 
 >>>> Courts Act 2022 which redefined what was previously the common law 
 >>>> offence of 'public nuisance'. 
 >>>> 
 >>>> That now includes any act that 'obstructs the public or a section of the 
 >>>> public in the exercise or enjoyment of a right that may be exercised or 
 >>>> enjoyed by the public at large'. 
 >>>> 
 >>>> Who knows how that will be interpreted by the courts. 
 >>> 
 >>> If it ever gets there. It doesn't need to. 
 >> It doesn't now of course, but something like it may some time in the 
 future. 
 > 
 > One could imagine a claim for wrongful arrest. Which I would say is bound 
 to 
 > lose as soon as the police mumble something about "national security" and 
 the 
 > judge gives them infinite licence to do whatever they think fit. But, 
 perhaps, 
 > we shall see. 
  
 It's high time the police were held properly to account for spurious 
 arrests and clampdowns that have no real basis in the law.  It's 
 becoming more and more prevalent and Draconian, and the police hide 
 behind the hassle most people will experience in having to sue for 
 unlawful arrest if they want any redress, meaning that many of course 
 don't even though they've been wronged. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)