Much has been reported about our police and judiciary recently, often seemingly dispensing contradictory treatment levels of punishment. Serious, even violent offenders have been given astonishing leniency compared to those who have innocently demonstrated at protests or simply written strong words on social media, and unbelievably, getting harsh penalties.
Such duplicity and what I believe was a personal political attack on free speech and lawful protesting were amply demonstrated at Westminster Magistrates Court. I attended this court case to support the ‘Tooting Four’ and listen to District Judge Daniel Sternberg’s ruling on this group’s alleged actions.
He presided over London Mayor and soon-to-be Knighted Sadiq Khan’s accusations that four previously law-abiding senior citizens, Nick Arlett, Lloyd Dunsford, Martin Whitehead, and Alison Young, out of dozens of fellow protesters also at the protest, had allegedly caused him and his family harassment, alarm, and distress at an anti-ULEZ rally in Tooting, southwest London, on April 6th.
They were found guilty on the most questionable evidence I have ever seen presented! I was shocked to the core by the judge’s interpretation of patently confused evidence entirely based on police body cameras.
An anti-ULEZ protest in April earlier this year.
Getty Images
One of the defendants, Nick Artlett, told me: “There is a very dangerous legal precedent that is being allowed to go unchallenged or even deliberately unrecognised by many regarding the guilty verdict of myself and the other three at Tooting.”
Nick continued: “Our conviction is not based on whether we caused alarm and distress, as there is no proof of that was happening. No witness was presented saying they were alarmed or distressed, and there was no single victim statement either. So, our convictions were solely based on an opinion that we should have known that our peaceful, law-abiding presence would likely have caused alarm and distress. What this means to honest protesters implies that ANY protest could fall foul of this ruling to have the ability to know what may or may not be offensive or upsetting to any individual that may or may not see or hear a protest.”
The Bronze Commander of the police operation on the day and his male officers unconvincingly presented confused and less-than-convincing evidence regarding the number attending the event. Each officer said a different number of protesters taking part, ranging from 20 to 100.
Each of their bodycam video evidence simply showed the arrests they made of 4 decent citizens who had protested in the same lawful way at over 60 previous anti-ULEZ protests across London in the last 15 months, from Orpington to Harrow to Romford to Bexleyheath.
A lawful ant-ULEZ rally held in Trafalgar Square.
Getty Images
Several lawful rallies were also held outside Parliament and in Trafalgar Square. These protests, and a couple that previously were also held in Tooting, always took place without disruption, violence, threats, intimidation, or harassment. All were run in a carnival spirit, attended by children, and in good humour.
Protesters dressed in fun dinosaur outfits and riding on double-decker buses and antique fire engines were always welcomed, with residents and local businesses offering vocal support and motorists and taxi drivers sounding their horns in appreciation.
Two female police officers, also presenting their evidence in court, fully corroborated these easily observable facts that this rally was pleasant and friendly and that no one, including residents and shopkeepers, had negatively complained to the police. These officers contradicted their command team, which seemed to have a political agenda as to what exactly happened.
Much of the prosecution’s case was based on what was espoused on placards and banners. The same banners and placards were used on all previous protests without police ever challenging their alleged offensiveness.
So why was the Tooting April 6th protest so different to warrant hundreds of police attending? In my opinion, along with thousands of others who have contacted me, the answer is simple. Mayor Sadiq Khan, London’s Police and Crime Commissioner, lives nearby, and the mayoral election was just weeks away. He needed to flex his political muscle to prevent free speech. He decided on this occasion to use his power to stop these peaceful, popular, well-run events by making an example of four innocent people.
Decent humans who have peacefully fought London’s ULEZ expansion plan and passionately campaigned to change Sadiq Khan’s unilateral decision to fleece drivers pointlessly, a decision without any majority public support.
The judge ruled that the protestors presence was likely to cause Sadiq Khan and his family distress.
Getty Images
The judge said he was satisfied that the “Tooting 4 knew, or ought to have known, that their presence was likely to cause Khan and his family distress.” Oh, one small point: the mayor was not even home that day but at another event in Trafalgar Square.
The Judge said the alleged offenders were just 100 metres from his front door. That is an orchestrated lie; I have since been there and measured the distance as 311 metres from where they were arrested to his home address. Ironically, one of those previous protests held in Tooting was closer to Khan’s home than this one was. So why no prosecution, then?
The judge revealed he had also attended a fundraising event with Mayor Khan. He said he couldn’t recall the event’s details and chose not to recuse himself from the case. This is all too cosy for me to believe there was no collusion here. I hope I am wrong.
And there, for the grace of God, go I. I attended over 25 protests as Reform UK’s candidate for the London Mayoral Election held in May this year, but I could not attend this one. Each event was peaceful, with a maximum of three police ensuring order. More were never needed.
I also feel sick that our clueless Prime Minister has sanctioned London’s dishonest and opportunistic mayor, his mate Sadiq Khan, to receive a knighthood. A prestigious award for failure?
Sadiq Khan is set for a knighthood.
Getty Images
This is a man who has divided religious communities, putting the Muslim community as being more important than Christian and Jewish faiths. Under his tenure, he has encouraged Two-Tier Policing, and violent knife crime has rocketed. He has failed to keep Londoners safe.
He has implemented an alleged air quality improvement scheme that not only needlessly impacts drivers, sole traders, and low-income motorists but also rips at least half a £billion out of the Capital’s economy per year. He has also manipulated health data and ignored public consultations to implement ULEZ, road restrictions, LTNs, and an epidemic of 20-mph zones.
He has failed on every level to balance the books with an ever-deepening £18bn black hole of debt. He continues to go back on promises, too, and now he is dealing a huge blow to commuters by raising the daily Tube cap by 70p.
I could list so much more politically dishonest about the London Mayor. Giving Sadiq Khan such a prestigious award diminishes its credibility and demeans those who deserve or already have such royal recognition.
What the hell is happening to our right to speak freely, protest lawfully and be governed by honest politicians? I have reached 70, and I am so pleased I am not a young person facing a future that is to be controlled in every aspect of our lives by those with vested interests. Democracy? My arse!
Howard Cox is the founder of FairFuelUK, former London mayoral candidate and PPC for Reform UK