FROM PROTECT THE WILD. A VERY SERIOUS POST WHICH DESERVES COMMENT

	Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more 'Stop and search' of monitor at Boxing Day parade raises serious questions the hunt' CHARLIE MOORES FEB 2   READ IN APP   At the Abergavenny Boxing Day Parade of the Monmouth Hunt, Gwent Police made a formal 'stop and search' of a monitor. Helen was standing quietly on the side of a busy high street that at the time was almost empty but would soon be filled with people. The police claimed to be acting on 'information and intelligence' that she might 'intentionally or recklessly cause public nuisance' by using a personal alarm to 'disrupt the hunt' and 'scare' the hunt's horses. Helen has spoken to Protect the Wild at length about the incident. She has been left upset and shaken, angry that she could be accused of doing anything that would put an animal at risk, and fearing that the police might target her in the future. All of what follows below is based on mobile phone footage recorded at the time and subsequent emails to Helen from Gwent Police. We should stress here that we're posting this article to try to understand more about stop and search powers and how they were used in this case. We see this discussion primarily as a precautionary example and a demonstration of why we need to know our rights - not as a complaint about the police. We don't agree with their actions, but Gwent Police behaved (to use their own words) "lawfully and professionally". The officers were courteous, they identified themselves, they described the legislation under which the search was being carried out, a female officer 'patted down' Helen, and she was advised that a copy of a police report would be made available - in other words, the correct procedures were followed. That's as it should be, but while we are not lawyers here at Protect the Wild, it seems only right to ask why in this specific case police officers used stop and search powers on someone who was doing absolutely nothing wrong solely because a hunt (which one we don't know, as we explain below) provided 'intelligence' (which is something of an oxymoron) in what was in all likelihood an attempt by that hunt to stop (or at least, hamper) legal protest. Note that the header image shows the protests at the Boxing Day parade sent to us by Helen. It shows her talking with a different group of officers long after the stop and search was carried out. We asked Helen if she was concerned she could be identified but typically she said the hunt knows who she is and that 'anger overcomes my fear'. Upgrade to paid Stop and Search Few of us probably have much interaction with the police, and it's likely that even fewer people reading this will have ever been through a “stop and search”. So what is it? One of the most controversial and most criticised police powers “stop and search” is a power given to the police by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) to stop people and detain them to search them. It is not an arrest, but it is also not voluntary (you can't simply refuse and walk away without risking arrest). Certain protocols which protect the public must be followed by police officers conducting a stop and search, but if you're not used to interacting with the police it can be extremely intimidating to suddenly find yourself being frisked by a police officer. Stop and search is renowned for its use to target young Black men (especially by the Metropolitan Police in London). It would be ridiculous to suggest it is being used on the same scale against hunt protestors, but aligning with the government's fixation on penalising 'disruptive protests' by climate and fuel activists it does appear (at least anecdotally) that 'stop and search' is increasingly being used to intimidate hunt monitors and sabs. Upgrade to paid Suspicion-based and suspicion-less searches What can trigger a stop and search? To keep this article relatively short, what follows is necessarily a very basic overview (for more detailed information see our Protectors of the Wild page on Stop and search and the Law) but police officers have the power to stop and search if they have ‘reasonable grounds’ (‘suspicion-based stop and search’) to suspect an individual is carrying: illegal drugs; a weapon; stolen property; something which could be used to commit a crime, such as a crowbar. Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 makes it legal to stop and search someone without reasonable grounds (a ‘suspicion-less stop and search’) if it has been approved by a senior police officer and if it is suspected that: serious violence could take place; you’re carrying a weapon or have used one; you’re in a specific location or area. So why was Helen stopped and searched? None of the above would seem to apply to Helen (unless the police are defining a hunt parade as 'a specific location or area'), so she requested a review of why she was stopped and searched. According to emails sent by Gwent Police "with all public order operations the police rely on information and intelligence which forms a public order policing plan" and they wrote specifically that "Gwent police received intelligence that you may be in possession of an alarm with an intention of disrupting the hunt." [Not 'hunt parade' or the public, but 'the hunt'.] They go on to say that: "From reviewing the Body Worn Video of the officers [police officers should always activate their BWV bodycams during a stop and search] you stated that you were involved in a hunt a few days prior where you had been in possession of an alarm and had it stolen from you although at that point you had not reported the theft to police. This therefore provided the officer with enough suspicion and grounds to carry out the stop/search". [Note especially that last sentence.] And that Helen was being searched under section 78 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 which says that: "1(7) An article is prohibited for the purposes of this part of this Act if it is - (g) an offence under section 78 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance). Stills from video footage of Helen's stop and search by Gwent Police (note how quiet the street is) Upgrade to paid Let's look at the incident in more detail Firstly, it's important to note that Helen is well-known to the Curre and Llangibby Hunt - but she doesn't monitor the Monmouth Hunt who were 'parading' that day. Gwent police haven't confirmed where the 'intelligence' that led them to stop and search a 70-year-old activist with no criminal record standing on the pavement of a public highway in the middle of the day had come from. But given that no one but the Curre and Llangibby Hunt knew that Helen had carried a personal alarm to their meet the week before (Helen hadn't yet reported the theft of her alarm to the police), it had to be either the Curre and Llangibby providing 'intelligence' prior to a parade they weren't even at, or the Monmouth who had made allegations at the 'parade' using information provided by the Curre and Llangibby. Secondly, as the composite of images above show, when the stop and search took place Helen was not standing in the road (which had been barriered in advance of the parade), she was not obstructing the pavement (the stop and search took place before crowds built up), nor was she causing anything that could be remotely described as a 'public nuisance'. This stop and search, then, appears to be 'suspicion-based' even though police (using the criteria usually used for that type of stop and search) had no reason to suspect Helen had committed a crime, was in possession of illegal drugs, or was carrying a weapon. In their own words, 'intelligence' that she had been carrying a personal alarm was the sole reason the police had to search her. Fortunately, most of the stop and search was recorded by a fellow activist. 'Most' because understandably no one knew what was about to happen and the recording starts after the police have begun talking with Helen. Some information about what the officers said as they walked up - crucially did they know who Helen was from the outset -  was therefore missed. (Helen has asked for a copy of footage from the officers' own bodycams). Helen had previously liaised with Gwent Police's Rural Crime Team (she'd actually offered to meet up with them before the 'parade' had begun) so thought that perhaps they'd come to talk to her about the parade. She is clearly surprised to be told she is to be stopped and searched, but throughout the interaction Helen can be seen to be non-aggressive, standing still, and while flustered she is expressing her unhappiness with being singled out politely. Helen can also be heard saying several times that she doesn't have a personal alarm on her because it was stolen from her the week before at a meet of the Curre and Llangibby Hunt. Disturbingly, at the start of the stop and search the male police officer can be heard on video saying Helen won't be handcuffed because she's not attempting to get away! He may have been ‘joking’, but surely uniformed officers know that even mentioning handcuffs as they stand over a slightly-built woman who hasn't committed a crime and is showing no signs of resisting or running off smacks of overkill and deliberate intimidation. We think Helen deserves an apology. Upgrade to paid Is potentially using a personal alarm justification for a stop and search? Gwent police appear to have used controversial and unusual powers to stop Helen because a hunt provided 'intelligence' about her carrying a personal alarm. A Curre and Llangibby Hunt supporter previously unknown to Helen who threatened her. Helen has never denied owning a personal alarm. She had been carrying one because of genuine concerns about her safety. The month before a hunt terrierman from the Curre had had to sign a Community Resolution Order and had his firearms taken away by police because of death threats he made towards her. The alarm was stolen three days before the parade when Helen had been using it to protect herself from (in her words) Curre and Llangibby "hunt thugs who were driving their horses at me and backing their horses into me and a friend who were monitoring the hunt to ensure they didn't go into any Natural Resources Wales woods from which they are banned".  The day ended with the huntsman threatening to follow Helen home. Video evidence of all of this has been shown to the police. Curre and Llangibby Hunt supporters in a wood belonging to Natural Resources Wales a few weeks before the Monmouth Hunt 'parade' - perhaps the very men on whose 'intelligence' Gwent Police were acting. Ironically, as part of a Safer Streets campaign Gwent Police themselves "have given out free home and vehicle security packs containing window alert alarms, lighting timers and personal attack alarms" to local residents. Other forces have advised women to carry alarms. While it should be a given that no one should feel so unsafe that they feel the need to carry an alarm, violence (especially against women) is endemic across society - and as recent reports on the notorious Cottesmore Hunt demonstrate is used against female hunt protestors. We think most reasonable people would agree therefore that Helen had a good reason to carry an alarm. Enthusiasts of 'countryside sports' will no doubt argue that if Helen hadn't been out in the countryside monitoring the hunt nothing would have happened to her, but assault is against the law and we all have the right to defend ourselves. Carrying a personal alarm is perfectly legal in the UK. They are not classified as weapons, and there are no laws prohibiting their use. They do though now appear to be cause for a 'stop and search' if they might 'disrupt the hunt'... What did the stop and search find? Nothing more (as Helen put it) than 'a lace handkerchief'. As she repeatedly told the officers her only personal alarm - her possession of which was the reason she was being searched, remember - had been stolen from her by a terrierman (and as we'll point out yet again, oddly not from the same hunt now getting ready to ride down a specially-closed high street). Upgrade to paid We have our own questions As we said above. carrying a personal alarm is perfectly legal in the UK and there are no laws prohibiting their use. But there is a caveat - using an alarm to intentionally cause harm or distress to another person is illegal and could result in criminal charges. That caveat is no doubt how Gwent Police justify their stop and search of Helen. The core duty of the police service "is to protect the public by detecting and preventing crime" and of course ‘prevention’ is pre-emptive, but both Helen and us think there are several troubling and outstanding questions that need answering: When was the ‘intelligence’ received which led to the stop and search? The timing is important because it would show that either Helen was being targeted in advance, or a decision was made on the day - meaning the ‘intelligence’ was only received that morning at the parade. Who actually 'reported' Helen? There was no evidence of an alarm on the day of the stop and search (there couldn’t be, Helen wasn’t carrying one) and if the 'intelligence' was entirely based on the say-so of a hunt referencing a prior incident the police neither witnessed nor had reported to them, why did the police not consider it 'anecdotal'? Given that Helen's alarm had been stolen at a Curre and Llangibby Hunt meet and that particular hunt wasn't even in Abergavenny at the time, that 'intelligence' may have even been secondhand rather than firsthand. With reference to the timing of the stop and search again, it's not clear from the complaint assessor’s email we quoted above - "This therefore provided the officer with enough suspicion and grounds to carry out the stop/search" - whether the police already knew about the alarm or it was Helen's confirmation that she had carried one that then triggered the stop and search. Video footage suggests police had already advised Helen that a stop and search was about to take place before she discussed her alarm being stolen, so was this a simple error on the assessor’s part or something more - a post hoc attempt to justify the search perhaps? Surely Gwent Police didn't need to use strongarm tactics on an 'elderly woman' (Helen's words, not ours) who was not using an alarm, didn't have an alarm visible, and was not committing a crime or causing a nuisance at the time of the stop and search. Yes, of course, until a search is done the police don't know what they will find - but it still seems like an over-reaction. Why didn't police tell Helen - politely - that concerns had been raised instead, tell her by whom, and ask her if she planned to 'disrupt the hunt'? She could have told them she would be protesting but would do so legally. That would surely have been a more proportionate response. Many people carry personal alarms. What would police have done if they'd found one: would Helen have been arrested or had the alarm taken off her? Are police now saying to the general public that in certain circumstances carrying a fully legal alarm is 'reasonable grounds' for a stop and search? Given the noise being made in the street when the parade was taking place, could a personal alarm really have caused a 'public nuisance' anyway?  What happened to common sense? In the video the officers say they are 'neutral' and just doing their jobs and we aren't in a position to dispute that, but the police are fully aware of the antagonism between pro-hunt supporters and pro-wildlife activists (the number of police on the streets during the parade proves that). Gwent Police must have known this was an attempt to intimidate a local activist (and perhaps have her escorted out of the area) and surely understand how it looks to the rest of us to use stop and search powers on an activist entirely on the unproven/anecdotal 'intelligence' of a fox hunt...

ACESS DENIED IN MANY INSTANCES. THIS RIGHT TO ROAM IS ESSENTIAL BUT WITH RESPONSIBILITY

IS RIGHT TO ROAM A 'CULTURE WAR'?

Dear Roamers, Thanks to all of you who got in touch following our previous newsletter (“What does the Right to Roam mean to you?” – 19th Jan). We received many beautiful responses about places dear to your hearts, since lost to the depredations of landscape exclusivity. A common theme is just how tightly policed the countryside has become in the past few decades, and especially since the 2020 lockdowns. Barbed wire has been with us since the late 19th century but the architecture of misanthropy it pioneered seems to grow ever more abundant.    POLLING IS IN – So much for countryside culture wars…    It’s sometimes claimed by our opponents that the right to roam is an urban fixation being imposed upon the countryside. One that rural people themselves want nothing to do with. Now, most of our team grew up and live in rural areas, so we knew in our bones that this was bollocks. Still, since it has become the chief attack line of those seeking to prevent access reform, we thought we’d test the claim in a fresh YouGov poll.   Well, the results are in. As in our previous poll, support for reform is strong and extensive across all ages, political affiliations and regions – even more so when you emphasise the responsibilities which would adjoin any new rights. 69% of respondents would support extending ‘rights of responsible access to the rest of the countryside’, provided it gives space for all the usual sensible exceptions (crops, privacy and highly sensitive wildlife areas) as we’re proposing.    This time though, we asked for an additional cross-break to test the alleged rural vs urban divide. Low and behold: support was completely identical. And we mean identical: 68% in both demographics, with ‘Town & Fringe’ leading the charge at 70% favourability. The Times covered the story (‘Country dwellers just as keen as townies on nature access’ – 23rd Jan) rightly highlighting the cold water it poured on claims made by the Countryside Alliance and others that our campaign is some kind of rural culture war.   As so often in country affairs, those who purport to represent the countryside are in reality only speaking for a tiny proportion of it. So we’d love for you all to share these results as much as possible in your networks. It’s time the rest of us had a voice.    FORBIDDEN ISLAND TRESPASS    A reminder that our next big event, held in tandem with our Devon group, will take place on Dartmoor on February 24th, where we’ll be trespassing to an ‘access island’ – that is, an area of land where we do have the right to roam already under the CRoW Act, but have no lawful means of reaching. This is to highlight why we think just extending the CRoW Act to a few new landscape designations won’t really cut the mustard. More on that soon.    You can sign up to the event here. Do read the event details carefully. Note that we’re experimenting with a deposit to reserve coach places. This is to minimise folk holding pricey coach spots and then not showing up last minute. A crisp tenner will be available to recollect from one of our stewards or if you’re flush you can opt to donate it to the campaign to help us cover the event costs. Parking will be limited on the day.    One of you pointed out that sometimes actual offshore islands are forbidden for good reason – namely to protect seabird colonies. So remember, friends: leave them birds alone! Despite the island theme, our event will be firmly inland and involve no water except the kind which rains down from Dartmoor’s skies.    LOCAL GROUP DIGEST   Undeterred by winter, our local groups have been out and about spreading (and sometimes singing) the word, as well as getting stuck into some brilliant acts of Wild Service.    -This month, Manchester Right to Roam teamed up with Radical Tradition to learn songs from the access movements of old. We’re looking forward to these being heartily delivered at events soon. Check out this scene of their spooky cave-based trespass singalong! Catch them next on 12th February at the Manchester Patagonia store for a talk with river campaigners, Save the River Bollin. More details here.  -Norwich Right to Roam have been doing great work myth-busting common misconceptions about the campaign as well as organising a fresh trespass walk for February 18th. Meet at Cantley Train Station at 2pm if you’re in the area and would like to be involved.    -Nearby, the Norfolk Right to Swim group will also be continuing its periodic ‘swimpasses’ with another walk and dip on February 12th: meet outside Leziate village hall car park at 10.30am. A great reminder that reform is about access to water as much as land!   -Bristol Right to Roam teamed up with our pals at Conham Bathing to clear the litter brought up by the recent floods. They spoke with locals who had been doing the same and were grateful there were more people to help. A powerful reminder that access to land also means taking ownership of its care.    -This weekend, our friends at the Sussex-based group, Landscapes of Freedom will be holding one of their monthly trespasses with a five mile walk “along an undulating landscape of fragmented woodland” concluding in an Imbolc celebration at Future Roots. Meet on  Sunday 4th February at 10am outside Sussex House Car Park 4 (University of Sussex). More details on their Instagram here. -Scotland might already have a right to roam (okay, “right of responsible access…” or is that a “right of access exercised responsibly”?) but our Right to Roam Scotland group is showing that hard-won rights always need to be defended. Join them at Holyrood park on 17th February for a gentle walk and awareness raising about the closure of the Radical Road. More on their Instagram here.   Want to get involved with this kind of amazing local activity? You can check and see if there’s a local group or contact in your area here. Can’t see anyone nearby but would like help starting your own? Get in touch with our local groups coordinator, Maria at maria@righttoroam.org.uk and she’ll give you a hand.    Till then, enjoy the snowdrops and keep on roaming. From Jon and the rest of the Right to Roam team

ANOTHER NEW BEGINNING FOR OUR PLATT

ANOTHER NEW BEGINNING 

FOR OUR PLATT AND BEFORE

THE LOG PILE CAME TO LIFE

before the log pile was born the diggerman 

came to brutalize seventeen years of growth 

now bare black earth with root threads exposed

hedgerow topped up in line leaving pennywort

ivy and moss clinging to its sides to reinvigorate 

once more as a our log pile looks on waiting

for the spores within to show themselves