WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.899 So, you know when you read the title of a piece 00:00:02.899 --> 00:00:05.000 of legislation, right? Something super dense 00:00:05.000 --> 00:00:07.419 and official sounding, like the Serious Organized 00:00:07.419 --> 00:00:10.679 Crime and Police Act 2005. Right, yeah. It sounds 00:00:10.679 --> 00:00:14.599 intense. Exactly. You instinctively picture this 00:00:14.599 --> 00:00:17.460 very specific type of world. Like, you're picturing 00:00:17.460 --> 00:00:19.859 international smuggling rings or high -stakes 00:00:19.859 --> 00:00:23.539 surveillance operations. Maybe some gritty action 00:00:23.539 --> 00:00:25.839 movie scenario where the authorities are... you 00:00:25.839 --> 00:00:28.199 know, taking down mob bosses. Oh, absolutely. 00:00:28.320 --> 00:00:30.579 I mean, it sounds like the kind of law that's 00:00:30.579 --> 00:00:33.140 designed exclusively for the absolute worst elements 00:00:33.140 --> 00:00:36.299 of the criminal underworld. The title alone projects 00:00:36.299 --> 00:00:39.159 this image of like heavily armed officers dealing 00:00:39.159 --> 00:00:42.259 with complex transnational threats. But the reality 00:00:42.259 --> 00:00:44.659 of what this law actually did is just drastically 00:00:44.659 --> 00:00:47.359 different. You do not picture a piece of legislation 00:00:47.359 --> 00:00:50.640 that ends up dictating exactly where a comedian 00:00:50.640 --> 00:00:52.990 is allowed to stand on a Tuesday afternoon. or 00:00:52.990 --> 00:00:55.509 what a prestigious art gallery can legally display 00:00:55.509 --> 00:00:58.130 on its floor. Yeah, or how the police deal with 00:00:58.130 --> 00:01:01.210 a single guy holding a megaphone. So welcome 00:01:01.210 --> 00:01:03.140 to today's deep dive. We are working through 00:01:03.140 --> 00:01:05.680 a really fascinating stack of sources today. 00:01:06.040 --> 00:01:08.200 We've got parliamentary debate transcripts, legal 00:01:08.200 --> 00:01:12.239 reviews of the 2005 SOCPA law, and contemporary 00:01:12.239 --> 00:01:14.719 news reports from the actual front lines of the 00:01:14.719 --> 00:01:17.180 protests. Which are wild to read, honestly. Totally. 00:01:17.439 --> 00:01:21.019 And our mission today is to unpack this very 00:01:21.019 --> 00:01:24.500 specific, highly controversial piece of UK legislation 00:01:24.500 --> 00:01:28.599 passed in April 2005, which is widely known as 00:01:28.599 --> 00:01:31.239 OCPA. And what's really fascinating here, I think, 00:01:31.400 --> 00:01:35.060 is the profound tension between sweeping legislative 00:01:35.060 --> 00:01:37.900 tiles and their really granular, sometimes totally 00:01:37.900 --> 00:01:40.500 unexpected impact on civil liberties and daily 00:01:40.500 --> 00:01:42.159 life. Yeah, the trickle down effect is crazy. 00:01:42.260 --> 00:01:43.900 Right. So we're going to examine the specific 00:01:43.900 --> 00:01:46.239 mechanics of this law, the high profile clashes 00:01:46.239 --> 00:01:48.379 it caused on the streets of London and just the 00:01:48.379 --> 00:01:50.900 broader implications for how public space and 00:01:50.900 --> 00:01:53.000 even private conversation is controlled by the 00:01:53.000 --> 00:01:56.260 state. OK, let's unpack this, because to understand 00:01:56.260 --> 00:01:58.500 how we get to the comedian and the art galleries, 00:01:58.730 --> 00:02:00.689 We really have to look at the broadest impact 00:02:00.689 --> 00:02:03.829 of this law first. We need to look at how it 00:02:03.829 --> 00:02:05.810 fundamentally changed the interaction between 00:02:05.810 --> 00:02:08.949 a police officer and an everyday citizen across 00:02:08.949 --> 00:02:11.069 the entirety of England and Wales. Right, the 00:02:11.069 --> 00:02:13.969 baseline shift. Exactly. And I like to think 00:02:13.969 --> 00:02:16.930 of this shift through this analogy, right? Prior 00:02:16.930 --> 00:02:20.009 to this act, police powers of arrest were tied 00:02:20.009 --> 00:02:23.599 to specific categories called arrestable Think 00:02:23.599 --> 00:02:25.439 of it like a key ring. OK, a key ring. Yeah. 00:02:25.879 --> 00:02:28.840 An officer needed a specific key, meaning a specific 00:02:28.840 --> 00:02:32.159 severity of a crime, to unlock the power to actually 00:02:32.159 --> 00:02:34.539 arrest you. Right, because the legal threshold 00:02:34.539 --> 00:02:37.199 used to be tied intrinsically to the nature of 00:02:37.199 --> 00:02:39.840 the crime itself, specifically something classified 00:02:39.840 --> 00:02:42.699 as an indictable offense. Right. So if the crime 00:02:42.699 --> 00:02:45.000 wasn't serious enough to warrant that specific 00:02:45.000 --> 00:02:47.280 key, the officer couldn't just arrest you on 00:02:47.280 --> 00:02:49.560 the spot. I mean, they had other ways to deal 00:02:49.560 --> 00:02:52.020 with minor infractions, like issuing a summons. 00:02:52.650 --> 00:02:54.569 immediate deprivation of liberty was reserved 00:02:54.569 --> 00:02:57.669 for much more severe actions. But then, so CPA 00:02:57.669 --> 00:03:00.330 comes along and essentially takes away that heavy 00:03:00.330 --> 00:03:03.189 complicated key ring and just hands constables 00:03:03.189 --> 00:03:06.389 a master key. A literal master key, yeah. Suddenly, 00:03:06.550 --> 00:03:09.069 the concept of an arrestable offense was thrown 00:03:09.069 --> 00:03:12.689 out entirely. An officer could now arrest someone 00:03:12.689 --> 00:03:16.610 for literally any offense, no matter how incredibly 00:03:16.610 --> 00:03:19.229 minor, provided they met something called the 00:03:19.229 --> 00:03:22.789 necessity test. Which is a huge pivot. We are 00:03:22.789 --> 00:03:25.250 moving the legal threshold away from the severity 00:03:25.250 --> 00:03:28.270 of the crime and placing it entirely onto the 00:03:28.270 --> 00:03:31.150 perceived necessity of the arrest in that specific 00:03:31.150 --> 00:03:33.330 moment. Hold on. Let me push back on that a second 00:03:33.330 --> 00:03:35.669 because it sounds incredibly subjective. Oh, 00:03:35.669 --> 00:03:38.050 it is. Like, how does an officer actually prove 00:03:38.050 --> 00:03:40.530 an arrest is necessary for something completely 00:03:40.530 --> 00:03:43.449 trivial? Say I drop a candy wrapper on the sidewalk, 00:03:43.689 --> 00:03:45.930 which, you know, would have been a non -arrestable 00:03:45.930 --> 00:03:49.389 offense in the past. Does that master key really 00:03:49.389 --> 00:03:52.509 turn for littering? Well, it does, if certain 00:03:52.509 --> 00:03:54.949 criteria are met. The legislation actually outlines 00:03:54.949 --> 00:03:57.370 several very specific triggers for the necessity 00:03:57.370 --> 00:03:59.810 test. A constable can arrest you for any offense 00:03:59.810 --> 00:04:01.669 if it's necessary to find out your real name 00:04:01.669 --> 00:04:03.669 or your address. Wait, really? Just for a name? 00:04:03.870 --> 00:04:07.150 Yeah. So in your candy wrapper scenario, if the 00:04:07.150 --> 00:04:09.569 officer stops you and you refuse to give your 00:04:09.569 --> 00:04:12.650 name, or if the officer sinkly has reasonable 00:04:12.650 --> 00:04:14.270 grounds to doubt that the name you just gave 00:04:14.270 --> 00:04:17.689 them is real, the arrest becomes legally necessary 00:04:17.689 --> 00:04:20.310 to establish your identity. So the offense isn't 00:04:20.310 --> 00:04:22.790 the wrapper anymore. Right. The offense is essentially 00:04:22.790 --> 00:04:25.430 making the administrative process difficult. 00:04:26.050 --> 00:04:28.740 What else triggers this necessity? Well, an arrest 00:04:28.740 --> 00:04:31.459 is also deemed necessary to prevent you from 00:04:31.459 --> 00:04:33.680 causing physical injury to yourself or others, 00:04:34.139 --> 00:04:36.639 or suffering physical injury, or causing damage 00:04:36.639 --> 00:04:39.540 to property. It also covers committing an offense 00:04:39.540 --> 00:04:41.819 against public decency. Public decency, okay. 00:04:42.019 --> 00:04:44.120 Though the source text for that one specifically 00:04:44.120 --> 00:04:46.779 notes it applies if members of the public going 00:04:46.779 --> 00:04:49.199 about their normal business cannot reasonably 00:04:49.199 --> 00:04:51.920 avoid you. I see. It also includes protecting 00:04:51.920 --> 00:04:54.920 a child or vulnerable person, allowing for the 00:04:54.920 --> 00:04:57.160 prompt and effective investigation of the offense, 00:04:57.290 --> 00:04:59.990 or preventing a prosecution from being hindered 00:04:59.990 --> 00:05:02.730 because the suspect might just disappear. Wait, 00:05:02.889 --> 00:05:04.910 I remember seeing highway obstruction in our 00:05:04.910 --> 00:05:07.170 source text too. Does that mean if I'm just standing 00:05:07.170 --> 00:05:09.310 on the pavement having a loud debate with a friend 00:05:09.310 --> 00:05:11.750 and someone has to walk around us to get by? 00:05:12.170 --> 00:05:15.029 That master key turns and I can be thrown in 00:05:15.029 --> 00:05:18.129 the back of a squad car. Literally, yes. If the 00:05:18.129 --> 00:05:20.750 officer determines that arresting you is the 00:05:20.750 --> 00:05:23.029 only way to prevent an unlawful obstruction of 00:05:23.029 --> 00:05:25.850 the highway, then yes, the statute grants them 00:05:25.850 --> 00:05:28.490 that exact power. That is wild. It is. And I 00:05:28.490 --> 00:05:31.529 want you, listening right now, to really consider 00:05:31.529 --> 00:05:33.970 the massive shift in legal philosophy happening 00:05:33.970 --> 00:05:36.529 here. The state is no longer saying, we only 00:05:36.529 --> 00:05:38.829 arrest people for major crimes. Right. The state 00:05:38.829 --> 00:05:41.550 is saying, we can arrest you for absolutely anything. 00:05:41.639 --> 00:05:44.980 provided the officer on the scene deems it procedurally 00:05:44.980 --> 00:05:47.360 necessary to do so to resolve the situation. 00:05:47.480 --> 00:05:50.620 Wow. It placed such a huge amount of discretion 00:05:50.620 --> 00:05:53.000 squarely on the shoulders of the individual officer 00:05:53.000 --> 00:05:55.879 on the street that an entirely new code of practice 00:05:55.879 --> 00:05:58.519 had to be issued just to guide officers on how 00:05:58.519 --> 00:06:01.199 to use this power when it took effect on January 00:06:01.199 --> 00:06:04.000 1st, 2006. It fundamentally reshapes the balance 00:06:04.000 --> 00:06:07.180 of power on the sidewalk. But, you know, as broad 00:06:07.180 --> 00:06:08.980 and sweeping as that change was for the whole 00:06:08.980 --> 00:06:12.980 country, the law also had this bizarre dual personality. 00:06:13.519 --> 00:06:16.459 It paired this massive expansion of general power 00:06:16.459 --> 00:06:19.379 with hyper -specific laser -focused restrictions 00:06:19.379 --> 00:06:22.759 applied to one tiny iconic piece of geography. 00:06:23.180 --> 00:06:25.279 Parliament Square in London. Exactly. Parliament 00:06:25.279 --> 00:06:29.209 Square. sections 132 to 138 of the act. This 00:06:29.209 --> 00:06:32.209 is where the legislation transitions from like 00:06:32.209 --> 00:06:35.629 national philosophy to intense geographical micromanagement. 00:06:35.649 --> 00:06:38.189 And it becomes intensely personal too because 00:06:38.189 --> 00:06:40.649 you really cannot talk about this section of 00:06:40.649 --> 00:06:43.050 the law without talking about one specific man 00:06:43.050 --> 00:06:46.220 named Brian Haw. Right. Brian was a peace campaigner. 00:06:46.560 --> 00:06:49.660 And starting way back in June 2001, he essentially 00:06:49.660 --> 00:06:52.399 set up camp in Parliament Square directly outside 00:06:52.399 --> 00:06:54.259 the heart of the British government. He was protesting 00:06:54.259 --> 00:06:57.040 UK and US policy in Iraq. He had quite the setup, 00:06:57.240 --> 00:06:59.480 too. Oh, he had a sprawling display of placards. 00:06:59.600 --> 00:07:01.439 He had a loudspeaker. And he was out there day 00:07:01.439 --> 00:07:03.699 after day, year after year in all weather. He 00:07:03.699 --> 00:07:05.980 really became a permanent fixture of the landscape. 00:07:06.569 --> 00:07:08.389 But for the people working inside the Palace 00:07:08.389 --> 00:07:11.769 of Westminster, he also became a highly visible, 00:07:12.050 --> 00:07:14.470 highly audible point of contention. Which is 00:07:14.470 --> 00:07:17.579 exactly how we get the new geographic rule. So 00:07:17.579 --> 00:07:21.699 CPA created a designated area, basically a zone 00:07:21.699 --> 00:07:24.279 extending up to a one kilometer radius from any 00:07:24.279 --> 00:07:26.759 point in Parliament Square. A huge chunk of central 00:07:26.759 --> 00:07:29.240 London. Right. And the new rule stated that if 00:07:29.240 --> 00:07:31.879 you wanted to demonstrate in that zone, you now 00:07:31.879 --> 00:07:33.899 had to give written notice to the Metropolitan 00:07:33.899 --> 00:07:36.439 Police. You needed to apply for authorization 00:07:36.439 --> 00:07:39.759 six days in advance or 24 hours at the absolute 00:07:39.759 --> 00:07:42.000 minimum if six days just wasn't practicable. 00:07:42.259 --> 00:07:44.620 It is really worth pausing to look at the actual 00:07:44.620 --> 00:07:46.889 parliamentary debate surrounding this. because 00:07:46.889 --> 00:07:49.529 the arguments perfectly encapsulate the eternal 00:07:49.529 --> 00:07:52.089 tug of war over public protest. Absolutely. And 00:07:52.089 --> 00:07:54.220 just to be clear for you listening... We are 00:07:54.220 --> 00:07:56.500 pulling these arguments straight from the parliamentary 00:07:56.500 --> 00:07:59.199 records provided in our sources. We aren't taking 00:07:59.199 --> 00:08:01.000 a side on whether Parliament Square should be 00:08:01.000 --> 00:08:03.779 a secure quiet zone or a free speech free for 00:08:03.779 --> 00:08:06.660 all. But it's just crucial to understand the 00:08:06.660 --> 00:08:08.759 intense ideological divide this sparked among 00:08:08.759 --> 00:08:11.660 lawmakers. Yeah, it was super polarized. On one 00:08:11.660 --> 00:08:13.439 side, the government argued this was a matter 00:08:13.439 --> 00:08:16.120 of basic workplace sanity and national security. 00:08:16.420 --> 00:08:18.300 Yeah. Our sources highlight Patrick Cormack, 00:08:18.540 --> 00:08:20.519 a member of parliament, stating on the record 00:08:20.519 --> 00:08:23.839 that Brian Haw's continuous noise. made the lives 00:08:23.839 --> 00:08:27.620 of staff and police intolerable. He painted this 00:08:27.620 --> 00:08:31.100 really bleak picture of protesters just baying 00:08:31.100 --> 00:08:33.899 away without an audience, just repeating themselves 00:08:33.899 --> 00:08:37.299 endlessly into megaphones while people were trying 00:08:37.299 --> 00:08:39.539 to govern the country. And the Home Office also 00:08:39.539 --> 00:08:42.919 brought up severe security concerns, which is 00:08:42.919 --> 00:08:46.440 a really powerful argument in a post -9 -11 world. 00:08:46.519 --> 00:08:49.980 Right, 2005. Exactly. They argued that the sheer 00:08:49.980 --> 00:08:52.700 volume of Haas' protest paraphernalia, like the 00:08:52.700 --> 00:08:55.019 signs, the tarps, the banners, it created a massive 00:08:55.019 --> 00:08:57.519 physical blind spot. where explosive devices 00:08:57.519 --> 00:08:59.320 could easily be hidden right outside the seat 00:08:59.320 --> 00:09:01.379 of government. But the pushback from the other 00:09:01.379 --> 00:09:04.340 side of the aisle was incredibly fierce. You 00:09:04.340 --> 00:09:06.919 had MPs like Jeremy Corbyn warning the government 00:09:06.919 --> 00:09:09.100 to think very carefully about stripping away 00:09:09.100 --> 00:09:11.519 civil rights that are deeply enshrined in British 00:09:11.519 --> 00:09:13.779 history just because someone is being annoying. 00:09:14.639 --> 00:09:17.919 And Glenda Jackson explicitly pushed back on 00:09:17.919 --> 00:09:21.039 the noise complaint, calling Haw's protest the 00:09:21.039 --> 00:09:24.120 voice of democracy. It highlights a deep ideological 00:09:24.120 --> 00:09:27.539 split. I mean, is the space outside a nation's 00:09:27.539 --> 00:09:29.940 parliament fundamentally a secure workplace that 00:09:29.940 --> 00:09:32.840 requires strict regulation? Or is it the ultimate 00:09:32.840 --> 00:09:35.039 public square where disruption and noise are 00:09:35.039 --> 00:09:37.220 the entire point of the location? And here's 00:09:37.220 --> 00:09:38.960 where I think this gets really interesting, though. 00:09:39.360 --> 00:09:41.820 You look at the timing of the law. You look at 00:09:41.820 --> 00:09:44.700 the target. Was this an anti -terrorism measure 00:09:44.700 --> 00:09:47.580 buried in an organized crime bill or just a noise 00:09:47.580 --> 00:09:49.820 complaint disguised as national security? That 00:09:49.820 --> 00:09:52.340 is the big question. Because Parliament wrote 00:09:52.340 --> 00:09:54.940 this sweeping one -kilometer rule that affected 00:09:54.940 --> 00:09:57.919 millions of Londoners. But everyone knew it was 00:09:57.919 --> 00:10:00.440 fundamentally a bespoke law aimed at one guy 00:10:00.440 --> 00:10:03.059 with a megaphone. Well, the legal system actually 00:10:03.059 --> 00:10:05.919 recognized that exact tension. When the law first 00:10:05.919 --> 00:10:08.639 came into effect, it completely backfired regarding 00:10:08.639 --> 00:10:11.120 its primary target. I love this part. The High 00:10:11.120 --> 00:10:13.039 Court of Justice initially ruled that because 00:10:13.039 --> 00:10:15.820 Brian Haas protests had started in June 2001, 00:10:16.179 --> 00:10:18.539 which was years before the act was passed, the 00:10:18.539 --> 00:10:20.620 new authorization rules couldn't apply to him 00:10:20.620 --> 00:10:23.440 retroactively. I have to admit, I love the irony 00:10:23.440 --> 00:10:26.360 of that. They pass a massive piece of legislation 00:10:26.360 --> 00:10:29.200 just to move one guy, and a judge looks at it 00:10:29.200 --> 00:10:31.580 and basically says, Actually, he was here first. 00:10:32.259 --> 00:10:34.399 Your new rule doesn't apply to pre -existing 00:10:34.399 --> 00:10:36.500 conditions. It's pretty amazing. But how does 00:10:36.500 --> 00:10:39.159 a court eventually overturn that? Because we 00:10:39.159 --> 00:10:41.759 know Ha didn't stay exempt forever. Right, he 00:10:41.759 --> 00:10:44.059 didn't. The government appealed the decision, 00:10:44.379 --> 00:10:46.539 and the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court 00:10:46.539 --> 00:10:50.039 in May 2006. OK, on what grounds? Their logic 00:10:50.039 --> 00:10:52.700 was really fascinating. They argued that the 00:10:52.700 --> 00:10:55.860 law wasn't punishing Hall retroactively for starting 00:10:55.860 --> 00:10:59.320 a protest in 2001. Rather, the law was regulating 00:10:59.320 --> 00:11:02.379 his ongoing behavior in the present. Ah, I see. 00:11:02.480 --> 00:11:04.620 So every day he remained in the square was a 00:11:04.620 --> 00:11:07.090 new instance of demonstrating. Therefore, he 00:11:07.090 --> 00:11:09.330 was actively demonstrating after the law took 00:11:09.330 --> 00:11:11.690 effect, bringing him firmly under the jurisdiction 00:11:11.690 --> 00:11:14.230 of the act and the requirement to seek authorization. 00:11:14.750 --> 00:11:17.090 OK, I mean, that makes legal sense, even if it 00:11:17.090 --> 00:11:19.090 feels like a total loophole to get their guy. 00:11:19.750 --> 00:11:21.950 But the broader damage was already done in terms 00:11:21.950 --> 00:11:24.429 of public perception because setting up a one 00:11:24.429 --> 00:11:26.870 kilometer radius where you have to ask the police 00:11:26.870 --> 00:11:29.629 for a permission slip to hold a sign. Yeah. Because 00:11:29.629 --> 00:11:32.110 the government chose to use bureaucratic paperwork 00:11:32.110 --> 00:11:35.389 like this six day authorization rule to stifle 00:11:35.399 --> 00:11:38.720 protest, they practically invited a bureaucratic 00:11:38.720 --> 00:11:41.600 rebellion. Oh, totally. It triggered an immediate, 00:11:41.759 --> 00:11:45.159 highly publicized wave of backlash that tested 00:11:45.159 --> 00:11:48.100 the absolute limits of the legislation. The deviance 00:11:48.100 --> 00:11:52.039 was instantaneous. August 1st, 2005, which is 00:11:52.039 --> 00:11:54.940 the exact day the Act comes into force, the Stop 00:11:54.940 --> 00:11:58.100 the War Coalition organizes a protest, 200 people 00:11:58.100 --> 00:12:00.659 show up right inside the exclusion zone. And 00:12:00.659 --> 00:12:02.789 no permission slip. Right. They didn't officially 00:12:02.789 --> 00:12:04.269 ask for permission, though it later came out 00:12:04.269 --> 00:12:05.789 that he'd been trying to negotiate with the police. 00:12:06.210 --> 00:12:08.409 Five people were arrested. And one of the people 00:12:08.409 --> 00:12:10.570 in that unauthorized crowd was Lauren Booth, 00:12:10.809 --> 00:12:12.769 who happened to be Tony Blair's sister -in -law. 00:12:12.889 --> 00:12:15.250 Which perfectly illustrates how quickly a law 00:12:15.250 --> 00:12:18.009 designed for serious organized crime captured 00:12:18.009 --> 00:12:21.029 a wide net of everyday citizens. And the convictions 00:12:21.029 --> 00:12:23.549 started rolling in shortly after. In December 00:12:23.549 --> 00:12:26.769 2005, Maya Evans became the first person convicted 00:12:26.769 --> 00:12:30.710 under the act. And her crime was like astonishingly 00:12:30.710 --> 00:12:34.070 quiet. Yeah, she stood near the Sanitav War Memorial 00:12:34.070 --> 00:12:37.029 in October and simply read aloud the names of 00:12:37.029 --> 00:12:40.429 British soldiers killed in the Iraq War. No megaphone, 00:12:40.690 --> 00:12:44.019 no riot. no property damage, just reading names 00:12:44.019 --> 00:12:46.580 without written police authorization in the designated 00:12:46.580 --> 00:12:48.840 zone. Which is exactly the kind of heavy -handed 00:12:48.840 --> 00:12:51.299 enforcement that inspires someone to weaponize 00:12:51.299 --> 00:12:54.580 the rules. Enter Mark Thomas. Yes. He's a comedian 00:12:54.580 --> 00:12:56.720 and political activist. He looks at this law. 00:12:56.970 --> 00:12:59.090 looks at the requirement to get police authorization 00:12:59.090 --> 00:13:01.549 for any protest in the zone, and decides to engage 00:13:01.549 --> 00:13:03.629 in the most spectacular, malicious compliance 00:13:03.629 --> 00:13:05.850 imaginable. He looked at the legislation and 00:13:05.850 --> 00:13:07.909 realized, you know, the law didn't actually cap 00:13:07.909 --> 00:13:10.009 the number of permits a citizen could ask for, 00:13:10.029 --> 00:13:12.169 so he just used the bureaucracy against itself. 00:13:12.409 --> 00:13:16.250 In 2006, he applies for and receives authorization 00:13:16.250 --> 00:13:20.370 for multiple individual protests. On a single 00:13:20.370 --> 00:13:24.070 day, he organizes 21 separate protests within 00:13:24.070 --> 00:13:26.590 the designated area. Incredible. He filled out 00:13:26.590 --> 00:13:29.110 all the forms, stayed completely within the confines 00:13:29.110 --> 00:13:31.350 of the law and buried the Metropolitan Police 00:13:31.350 --> 00:13:33.750 in their own paperwork. He actually got into 00:13:33.750 --> 00:13:36.429 the Guinness Book of Records for the most protests 00:13:36.429 --> 00:13:39.070 in a single day. Guinness officially recognized 00:13:39.070 --> 00:13:41.409 20 of them because his first and last protests 00:13:41.409 --> 00:13:43.649 were in the exact same physical spot. And the 00:13:43.649 --> 00:13:45.950 rebellion wasn't just limited to street activists 00:13:45.950 --> 00:13:48.690 and comedians pushing back. The cultural sector 00:13:48.690 --> 00:13:51.470 got involved too, creating one of the most fascinating 00:13:51.470 --> 00:13:53.870 artistic statements of the decade. Oh, the art 00:13:53.870 --> 00:13:57.250 gallery thing, yes. In January 2007, Tate Britain, 00:13:57.350 --> 00:13:59.710 which is one of the most prestigious art galleries 00:13:59.710 --> 00:14:02.509 in the country, opened an installation by the 00:14:02.509 --> 00:14:05.129 artist Mark Wallinger. It was called State Britain. 00:14:05.470 --> 00:14:07.460 And this wasn't just... Like a painting on a 00:14:07.460 --> 00:14:10.179 wall, Wallinger meticulously recreated Brian 00:14:10.179 --> 00:14:13.240 Haw's entire confiscated protest display. Down 00:14:13.240 --> 00:14:15.960 to the last detail. Every single placard, every 00:14:15.960 --> 00:14:17.960 torn flag, every weather -beaten teddy bear, 00:14:18.559 --> 00:14:21.720 an anti -war slogan. He rebuilt it inside the 00:14:21.720 --> 00:14:24.360 pristine walls of the gallery. But the true genius 00:14:24.360 --> 00:14:27.019 of the exhibit wasn't just the meticulous recreation, 00:14:27.220 --> 00:14:30.340 it was the geography. The Tate issued a press 00:14:30.340 --> 00:14:32.899 release noting that the one kilometer exclusion 00:14:32.899 --> 00:14:35.200 zone from Parliament Square didn't magically 00:14:35.200 --> 00:14:38.159 stop at the gallery doors. Right. It reportedly 00:14:38.159 --> 00:14:40.820 ran straight through the building, literally 00:14:40.820 --> 00:14:43.620 bisecting the Duveen Hall where the exhibit was 00:14:43.620 --> 00:14:46.279 actually located. So Wallinger paints a literal 00:14:46.279 --> 00:14:49.059 black line across the floor of the gallery. On 00:14:49.059 --> 00:14:51.389 one side of the line, the recreated protest art 00:14:51.389 --> 00:14:53.570 is perfectly legal. On the other side of the 00:14:53.570 --> 00:14:56.149 line, it is technically an unauthorized demonstration 00:14:56.149 --> 00:14:58.590 inside the exclusion zone. And the media had 00:14:58.590 --> 00:15:01.210 an absolute field day with this. There was intense 00:15:01.210 --> 00:15:03.649 speculation that the police might actually march 00:15:03.649 --> 00:15:05.970 into Tate Britain and seize the half of the art 00:15:05.970 --> 00:15:08.190 installation that sat on the wrong side of the 00:15:08.190 --> 00:15:11.210 painted line. It highlighted the utter absurdity 00:15:11.210 --> 00:15:14.289 of drawing an arbitrary geographical circle on 00:15:14.289 --> 00:15:16.870 a map to regulate free expression. I have to 00:15:16.870 --> 00:15:18.950 give the punchline to this whole art world drama, 00:15:19.049 --> 00:15:21.769 though. because a rival art group called the 00:15:21.769 --> 00:15:24.350 Stuckists, specifically a guy named Charles Thompson, 00:15:24.870 --> 00:15:27.169 wrote a letter to The Guardian pointing out a 00:15:27.169 --> 00:15:30.350 tiny geographical flaw in Wallinger's masterpiece. 00:15:30.629 --> 00:15:32.870 Oh, this is great. The exclusion zone actually 00:15:32.870 --> 00:15:36.029 ended at Thorny Street, which was 300 yards before 00:15:36.029 --> 00:15:39.210 the Tate Gallery. So the dramatic black line 00:15:39.210 --> 00:15:42.529 dissecting the room was completely factually 00:15:42.529 --> 00:15:45.330 inaccurate. Factually inaccurate, but artistically 00:15:45.330 --> 00:15:48.659 potent. It proved the point regardless. The entire 00:15:48.659 --> 00:15:51.679 restriction was so messy, so difficult to enforce 00:15:51.679 --> 00:15:54.679 logically, and so widely mocked that eventually 00:15:54.679 --> 00:15:57.259 Gordon Brown promised a review. Right. Those 00:15:57.259 --> 00:16:00.320 specific sections of the Act, 132 to 138, were 00:16:00.320 --> 00:16:02.139 officially repealed by the Police Reform and 00:16:02.139 --> 00:16:04.860 Social Responsibility Act in 2011. They replaced 00:16:04.860 --> 00:16:06.799 it with a different scheme, but that infamous 00:16:06.799 --> 00:16:10.000 one kilometer permission zone was gone. It really 00:16:10.000 --> 00:16:12.539 serves as a textbook example of how a law designed 00:16:12.539 --> 00:16:15.240 to impose order can inadvertently generate years 00:16:15.240 --> 00:16:17.919 of highly creative, highly visible disorder. 00:16:18.259 --> 00:16:20.980 Now, we spent a lot of time on the loud, highly 00:16:20.980 --> 00:16:23.860 visible protests in Parliament Square. But before 00:16:23.860 --> 00:16:26.779 we wrap up, we really need to shift gears and 00:16:26.779 --> 00:16:29.440 look at a much quieter change hidden inside this 00:16:29.440 --> 00:16:32.480 act. A one -line amendment that is deeply consequential, 00:16:32.779 --> 00:16:35.200 but got almost no headlines compared to Brian 00:16:35.200 --> 00:16:38.190 Hall. Yeah, tucked away in the depths of SoCPA 00:16:38.190 --> 00:16:40.909 is an amendment to an older piece of legislation, 00:16:41.309 --> 00:16:44.629 the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. So what 00:16:44.629 --> 00:16:46.610 does this actually mean for you listening? We 00:16:46.610 --> 00:16:49.250 aren't talking about organized crime rings harassing 00:16:49.250 --> 00:16:51.370 witnesses here, are we? We are talking about 00:16:51.370 --> 00:16:54.070 everyday interactions. We are. So under the old 00:16:54.070 --> 00:16:57.009 1997 rules to be guilty of pursuing a course 00:16:57.009 --> 00:16:59.549 of conduct that amounted to harassment, the law 00:16:59.549 --> 00:17:02.350 required you to approach one specific person 00:17:02.350 --> 00:17:04.710 at least twice. OK, that makes sense. There had 00:17:04.710 --> 00:17:07.079 to be a demonstrable pattern of behavior directed 00:17:07.079 --> 00:17:10.099 at an individual. But SoCPA tweaked that language. 00:17:10.160 --> 00:17:11.920 It changed it so that approaching two different 00:17:11.920 --> 00:17:14.480 people just once could legally be deemed a course 00:17:14.480 --> 00:17:16.640 of conduct amounting to harassment. Wait, let 00:17:16.640 --> 00:17:18.579 me make sure I understand the practical implication 00:17:18.579 --> 00:17:21.000 of that. Yeah. Because that is a microscopic 00:17:21.000 --> 00:17:24.500 linguistic shift with a massive real -world impact. 00:17:24.759 --> 00:17:27.240 It really is. If I am standing outside a grocery 00:17:27.240 --> 00:17:30.400 store handing out flyers for a lost dog or canvassing 00:17:30.400 --> 00:17:33.099 for a local charity and I hand a flyer to one 00:17:33.099 --> 00:17:35.799 person who ignores me, and then I hand a flyer 00:17:35.799 --> 00:17:39.299 to a totally different stranger. Is that now 00:17:39.299 --> 00:17:42.200 a pattern of harassment? Potentially, yes. If 00:17:42.200 --> 00:17:44.759 those two individuals felt alarmed or distressed 00:17:44.759 --> 00:17:47.420 by your approach, the legal threshold for a course 00:17:47.420 --> 00:17:50.660 of conduct has been met. This raises a vital 00:17:50.660 --> 00:17:53.079 question about the chilling effect of legislation. 00:17:54.319 --> 00:17:56.680 Commentators, like the journalist George Mambio, 00:17:56.980 --> 00:17:59.180 were quick to point out the extreme danger here. 00:17:59.920 --> 00:18:02.460 Monbiot argued that this amended harassment act 00:18:02.460 --> 00:18:05.240 effectively allows the police to ban any campaign 00:18:05.240 --> 00:18:08.160 they please. Because campaigning, by definition, 00:18:08.539 --> 00:18:10.940 requires talking to mockable strangers. Exactly. 00:18:11.140 --> 00:18:12.920 If you were standing on a street corner handing 00:18:12.920 --> 00:18:15.460 out leaflets and you speak to two different strangers 00:18:15.460 --> 00:18:18.240 one time each, you could theoretically cross 00:18:18.240 --> 00:18:20.720 the legal threshold into harassment if a police 00:18:20.720 --> 00:18:23.059 officer decides your cause is a nuisance. It 00:18:23.059 --> 00:18:24.779 circles right back to the subjective enforcement 00:18:24.779 --> 00:18:26.539 we talked about at the beginning with the master 00:18:26.539 --> 00:18:29.369 key. It lowers the bar for police intervention 00:18:29.369 --> 00:18:32.809 from something requiring a severe targeted and 00:18:32.809 --> 00:18:35.210 repeated offense against a victim to something 00:18:35.210 --> 00:18:37.829 that just requires an officer to decide your 00:18:37.829 --> 00:18:40.210 general presence on the street is bothering people. 00:18:40.380 --> 00:18:42.559 It creates a framework where the law is written 00:18:42.559 --> 00:18:45.299 so broadly that everyone engaged in public discourse 00:18:45.299 --> 00:18:47.380 is technically breaking it. And when everyone 00:18:47.380 --> 00:18:49.519 is technically breaking the law, enforcement 00:18:49.519 --> 00:18:52.500 becomes entirely discretionary. The police get 00:18:52.500 --> 00:18:55.680 to choose who is a protester and who is a harasser. 00:18:55.819 --> 00:18:58.119 Wow. So let's bring this all together. We started 00:18:58.119 --> 00:19:00.500 today looking at a piece of legislation with 00:19:00.500 --> 00:19:03.299 a very intimidating title, the Serious Organized 00:19:03.299 --> 00:19:06.950 Crime and Police Act 2005. And what have we actually 00:19:06.950 --> 00:19:09.430 found inside those pages? We found a bill that 00:19:09.430 --> 00:19:11.789 abolished traditional arrestable offenses and 00:19:11.789 --> 00:19:14.170 handed out subjective master keys based on a 00:19:14.170 --> 00:19:16.650 necessity test. We found a law that temporarily 00:19:16.650 --> 00:19:19.130 turned the historic heart of British democracy 00:19:19.130 --> 00:19:22.410 into a strictly permitted free speech zone, resulting 00:19:22.410 --> 00:19:25.029 in the criminalization of a woman simply reading 00:19:25.029 --> 00:19:27.309 the names of the dead at a national monument. 00:19:27.670 --> 00:19:30.049 And we found a law that accidentally put a comedian 00:19:30.049 --> 00:19:32.809 in the Guinness Book of Records, created a geographical 00:19:32.809 --> 00:19:35.279 crisis in a modern art gallery over a fake black 00:19:35.279 --> 00:19:38.000 line and redefine the very concept of what it 00:19:38.000 --> 00:19:40.720 means to harass a stranger on the street. Here's 00:19:40.720 --> 00:19:42.640 a final thought to leave you with, just expanding 00:19:42.640 --> 00:19:45.720 on this idea of legislative creep. If physical 00:19:45.720 --> 00:19:48.140 geographical boundaries and paper authorization 00:19:48.140 --> 00:19:50.759 forms caused this much chaos and overreach in 00:19:50.759 --> 00:19:54.640 2005, think about how this exact same legal philosophy 00:19:54.640 --> 00:19:56.819 applies to our digital public squares today. 00:19:56.839 --> 00:19:59.359 Oh, that's a good point. If a tech platform or 00:19:59.359 --> 00:20:01.900 a government builds a sweeping automated algorithm 00:20:01.900 --> 00:20:05.039 designed to ban serious organized cybercrime, 00:20:05.460 --> 00:20:07.779 how long before that same digital necessity test 00:20:07.779 --> 00:20:10.680 is quietly used to silence a digital protester 00:20:10.680 --> 00:20:14.259 or flag a controversial post as harassment? The 00:20:14.259 --> 00:20:17.140 tools of control evolve, but the underlying tension 00:20:17.140 --> 00:20:19.519 never goes away. That is a brilliant point and 00:20:19.519 --> 00:20:21.880 a slightly terrifying question to ponder the 00:20:21.880 --> 00:20:24.240 next time you scroll through your feed. Thank 00:20:24.240 --> 00:20:26.000 you so much for joining us on this deep dive 00:20:26.000 --> 00:20:28.240 into the hidden layers of the law. It really 00:20:28.240 --> 00:20:30.039 goes to show you whether you're looking at a 00:20:30.039 --> 00:20:32.920 broken arm on an x -ray or a newly printed rule 00:20:32.920 --> 00:20:36.160 book, things are rarely as precise as they seem. 00:20:36.759 --> 00:20:39.140 Always look past the title. We'll catch you next 00:20:39.140 --> 00:20:39.299 time.