Our favourite Withdean whinger eats up more public money

[Lady Whistledown]

Without getting into this particular case, the word "surveillance" rather implies some kind of covert, underground stalking on the part of the police. Which, from what appears there, it's certainly not, as far as I can tell.

The information that is recorded in most cases is simply information that would be available to you, I or any old Mrs Miggins walking down the street, should they choose to do so. Mr X was at a protest. Mr X was dressed in such and such a manner. Mr X had this with him or that with him, or was driving a particular vehicle.

It might not seem important at first glance, but sometimes it becomes relevant because in due course, something happens- such as a member of the public reporting two blokes dressed in a particular manner, for example, breaking into somewhere, or doing something that crosses the boundaries of legality. The fact that some police officer has submitted a log saying he saw Mr X dressed in that clothing ten minutes previously might make the difference between catching up with the person or not.

I'm not suggesting for a second that the person in this particular case was or would ever have been up to anything criminal, merely that this is what could happen in any scenario. It's not even just protestors (or football thugs, to use another example), it might be that someone's seen a well known burglar strolling around a part of town...a while later a burglary is reported in that area and the description just so happens to match what the well known burglar was seen wearing just prior to that. It's not going to solve the case on its own, but it might just be an important lead. John Catt is effectively suggesting that the police shouldn't be able to log and keep such information. Fine, just don't complain when your house gets turned over and nobody bothered to report that Brighton's most prolific house breaker was seen two doors down an hour previously.

 

[Poyetry In Motion]

Has he been beaten with sticks yet?

 

[Superphil]

Without getting into this particular case, the word "surveillance" rather implies some kind of covert, underground stalking on the part of the police. Which, from what appears there, it's certainly not, as far as I can tell.

The information that is recorded in most cases is simply information that would be available to you, I or any old Mrs Miggins walking down the street, should they choose to do so. Mr X was at a protest. Mr X was dressed in such and such a manner. Mr X had this with him or that with him, or was driving a particular vehicle.

It might not seem important at first glance, but sometimes it becomes relevant because in due course, something happens- such as a member of the public reporting two blokes dressed in a particular manner, for example, breaking into somewhere, or doing something that crosses the boundaries of legality. The fact that some police officer has submitted a log saying he saw Mr X dressed in that clothing ten minutes previously might make the difference between catching up with the person or not.

I'm not suggesting for a second that the person in this particular case was or would ever have been up to anything criminal, merely that this is what could happen in any scenario. It's not even just protestors (or football thugs, to use another example), it might be that someone's seen a well known burglar strolling around a part of town...a while later a burglary is reported in that area and the description just so happens to match what the well known burglar was seen wearing just prior to that. It's not going to solve the case on its own, but it might just be an important lead. John Catt is effectively suggesting that the police shouldn't be able to log and keep such information. Fine, just don't complain when your house gets turned over and nobody bothered to report that Brighton's most prolific house breaker was seen two doors down an hour previously.

Thanks Edna, that's a more sucinct and rational way of explaining it, and makse 100% sense to me, of course, some people won't (want) to get it.

 

[DanielT]

The bloke might have a point to an extent but he wasted so much public money on non-causes that quite frankly I couldn't care if they locked him without trial now. If he cared sooooooooo much for his causes he wouldn't live in a £750k house and expect the tax payer to pick up the tab. Legal aid is for people who can't afford to defend themselves - he can. Sell his house, buy a nice flat and he's still got over 1/2 million quid to use to fight his causes. Those he wins he could claim costs. I bet if that's what he had to do then he's be much less of a vocal nutter.

Legal Aid for someone living in Shepherds Croft?! Does sound like someone abusing the system.

 

[Mr Burns]

It's people like this, that makes me wish the police had a midnight snatch squad, and they just end up on the missing persons list... if you know what I mean.

 

[Withdean Wanderer]

Oh, thought this was going to be about me

 

[Gangsta]

Have you actually read the article?

Protester sues police over surveillance database

Spy unit kept detailed record of 86-year-old John Catt's presence at more than 55 demonstrations over four-year period

• Rob Evans and Paul Lewis

• The Guardian, Thursday 9 February 2012
• Article history

John Catt talking about the surveillance in 2010 Link to this video

An 86-year-old man is launching a landmark lawsuit against police chiefs who labelled him a "domestic extremist" and secretly recorded his political activities in minute detail.
Lawyers for John Catt are due to open the legal action at the high court on Thursday against a clandestine police unit that has been at the centre of controversy over its undercover infiltration of political groups.
Catt, who has no criminal record, was "shocked and terrified" when he discovered that police had kept a detailed record of his presence at more than 55 demonstrations over a four-year period.
The police had detailed how the Brighton pensioner took out his sketchpad and made drawings of demonstrations he attended. Also logged were slogans on his clothes and details of his appearance, such as "clean-shaven".
His legal action threatens to deal another blow to the secretive National Public Order Intelligence Unit, which has been covertly monitoring protesters since 1999.
The unit has recorded the activities of thousands of campaigners on a nationwide database. Defeat in the court case would put pressure on it to delete details of activists from the database.
A similar case in 2009 compelled the Metropolitan police to remove 40% of the photographs it held on a database of protesters after the court of appeal ruled that the force had unlawfully retained an image of an anti-war campaigner, Andrew Wood.
Over the past year the unit has been engulfed in criticism after the unmasking of Mark Kennedy, the undercover police officer who infiltrated the environmental movement for seven years. Last week, an official police watchdog criticised the conduct of Kennedy and his superiors at the unit.
The watchdog, Sir Dennis O'Connor of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, said the unit was unlikely to be justified in recording and retaining intelligence "in a number of cases".
Kennedy and other undercover police officers gathered secret intelligence that was fed into the database. The unit has also drawn on information from uniformed surveillance teams and telephone taps, informants in political groups, and companies to amass the secret files.
Catt's lawyers will argue that he should be permanently taken off the database as he is "committed to protesting through entirely peaceful means".
In legal papers, Catt has described how the police have recorded the political aims of the demonstrations he was at between 2005 and 2009. Some of the files contained "highly personalised" information about his appearance and "hearsay evidence and police officers' opinions", he has argued.
He highlighted how police recorded his arrival at one demonstration and that he "sat on a folding chair and appeared to be sketching".
At another demonstration, in March 2006, police noted that "John CATT arrived in his white Citroen Berlingo van. He removed several banners for the protesters to use and at the completion of the demo returned the same to the van. He was using his drawing pad to sketch a picture of the protest and the police presence."
On another occasion, police wrote that he was on a demonstration against Guantánamo Bay in September 2005, adding: "John CATT was seen wearing a Free Omar T-shirt, he was clean-shaven … John CATT was very quiet and was holding a board with orange people on it."
Police chiefs have argued that they are legally justified in maintaining the files on Catt, describing the surveillance as "minor". Lawyers for the police say Catt has been taking part in a campaign to close down a Brighton arms factory owned by the US firm EDO MBM Technology. This is a "campaign of illegality designed to pressurise EDO to cease its lawful business" and has led to a series of convictions of campaigners, according to the police.
Police say the surveillance of Catt is necessary because "his voluntary association at the Smash EDO protests forms part of a far wider picture of information which it is necessary for the police to continue to monitor in order to plan to maintain the peace, minimise the risks of criminal offending and adequately to detect and prosecute offenders".

I was actually revelling in my having not read the article yet making offensive comments about the man. I consider it training for old age, when its alright to read the Daily Mail and be obnoxious.

 

[Gangsta]

However much of a tool this bloke is, it seems ridiculously heavy handed from the police.

Then again, if you were the police and you had to deal with someone as annoying as him....

 

[Gangsta]

Only if they had beaten him with sticks..............................

That'll be the dawn raid next week.

 

[Gangsta]

I did, and from the tone of the report I thought it was from the Daily Mail or the Express, until I saw that someone had pointed out is was the guardian.

Does Catt think he is someone special? He's an interfering busybody, one of thousands that the police carry out surveillance on, in the interests of public safety. He may not have committed any criminal acts, but he puts himself in the spotlight. At least if he had been carrying out criminal activities there is a good chance he would have been caught.

As far as I can read no harm’s been done to him. I wonder if the workforces of the businesses he’s protested against have suffered.

Exactly. Maybe he is mental and should be sectioned, and then beaten with sticks.

 

[The Brighton Bear]

Will this beating with sticks be carried out publicly?

 

[He Shot He Scored]

The thing I'd really like to know is how does he get legal aid living in an expensive house in Withdean ( worth £750,000 according to one poster above?). Can you really get legal aid in these circumstances. Has he always lived there. I think I remember in previous threads about this person that the Albion were in Withdean before him? Therefore at some stage he had money to buy a presumably expensive house in Withdean, but can't afford legal bills so gets legal aid.

Is there anyone with knowledge of the legal system who can comment on this because I can't see how he gets away with it.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

I remember being subjected to what Special Branch intended to be covert surveillance. I have no idea how long it went on, but they let their cover slip once when they turned up at the Ram at Firle to observe a music session being performed by a band I used to work with - a couple of the band members had previous history in the Communist Party, but were, on the night, mainly occupied in playing the banjo and drums. The men in the funny coats arrived early and spent a while asking the landlord of the pub a string of questions about the band, then left just as the music started. Needless to say, our man behind the bar simply told us who the strangers were, because they had discreetly told him.

Fast forward a few years and I'd climbed the management ladder at East Sussex County Council, to the point at which I was given a role in the regional civil defence plans that were being formulated to restore some sort of normality in the event of a soviet nuclear attack. For some mysterious reason, confirmation of my appointment to this role took a while to come through. Eventually, though, they sent me to a training event at the Civil Defence College at Easingwold, in North Yorkshire. When I arrived to check in, I was met by a very senior army officer, who introduced himself with the words, "Oh you're ++ ++++++++. It took a while, but I'm pleased to say you finally got clearance".

I found the whole thing rather spooky. At least John Catt seems to have twigged that big brother has been watching him. It's rather more disturbing to discover that you hadn't known much about it.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

While on one level deploring John Catt - obviously - for his NIMBYism as regards the Albion, I can't help but grudgingly admire the old duffer. There's life in the old dog yet! Fair play to him for taking the fight to the seriously shady National Public Order Intelligence Unit. You'd feel the same if it happened to you.

Here's what John Pilger wrote about John Catt in the New Statesman in January 2006 in an article entitled 'The Death Of Freedom':

'Eighty-year-old John Catt served with the RAF in the Second World War. Last September, he was stopped by police in Brighton for wearing an "offensive" T-shirt which suggested that Bush and Blair be tried for war crimes. He was arrested under the Terrorism Act and handcuffed, with his arms held behind his back. The official record of the arrest says the "purpose" of searching him was "terrorism" and the "grounds for intervention" were "carrying plackard and T-shirt with anti-Blair info" (sic).'

Like I say, fair play to the boy. Sorry if that upsets the NSC groupmind

 

[albion534]

i got some drum sticks left over from my kfc bucket i could throw at him

 

[The Merry Prankster]

'Eighty-year-old John Catt served with the RAF in the Second World War. Last September, he was stopped by police in Brighton for wearing an "offensive" T-shirt which suggested that Bush and Blair be tried for war crimes. He was arrested under the Terrorism Act and handcuffed, with his arms held behind his back. The official record of the arrest says the "purpose" of searching him was "terrorism" and the "grounds for intervention" were "carrying plackard and T-shirt with anti-Blair info" (sic).'

If that is the whole truth then that is shocking.