Job-shy parasites Ayrton? How very colourful. Did you get that one out of the, ladybird, my first insults book?

Show some respect to these people, they have been sleeping in flipping cold conditions, protesting generally righteous causes and behaving like normal caring human beings.

They can hold their heads up high.

This is far from over.

This is just the beginning.

We were led to believe that there are no alternatives to the current austerity measures but that’s just not true. We were led to believe that we are helpless and that we have no voice. But that’s not true.

I have come to feel that Occupy represent the voice of the people of this country and that the government represent purely the voice of the 1%.

I can not tell you how inspiring you have been and I wish you the best in what happens in court today and we will be doing everything we can to support what Occupy does next.

Keep it lit

Most of them look like they need a good wash

Roughly forty years earlier, the same court had issued a similar opinion in Hopkin Huggett’s Case. Huggett and his friends had come to the aid of a man who had been arrested by a constable named Berry. Huggett demanded to see the arrest warrant. When Berry produced a clearly spurious document, Huggett drew his sword and demanded the prisoner’s release. Berry refused, and finished second in the ensuing swordfight.
[14/01/2012 18:52:18] magcharter1215: > The wrongfully arrested man in that case (who was threatened with impressment into the military) did nothing to resist his abduction. It wasn’t clear that Huggett knew the man, or had even met him prior to the incident. Yet the Queen’s Bench ruled that Huggett’s actions were justified, since a situation in which a “man [is] unduly arrested or restrained of his liberty … is a provocation to all other men of England, not only his friends but strangers also[,] for common humanity’s sake.”
[14/01/2012 19:09:07] magcharter1215: — Referenced from here: http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=37975

In addition to codifying the Common Law right to resist arrest, Hopkin Huggett’s Case and Queen v. Tooley recognized that this right inheres not only in the victim, but in citizens who interpose on the victim’s behalf.

Simply put: When a police officer commits the crime of unlawful arrest, the citizens who intervene are acting as peace officers entitled to employ any necessary means – including lethal force – to liberate the victim.

In early 18th Century England, this was seen as a non-negotiable bulwark against what the heroic Algernon Sidney called “the violence of a wicked magistrate who, hav[ing] armed a crew of lewd villains,” would otherwise inflict his will on innocent and helpless people with impunity. Sidney’s martyrdom at the hands of precisely that kind of degenerate, tyrannical magistrate underscored the vitality of the principle he expressed.

“The right to resist unlawful arrest memorializes one of the principal elements in the heritage of the English revolution: the belief that the will to resist arbitrary authority in a reasonable way is valuable and ought not to be suppressed by the criminal law,” observed Paul Chevigny in a 1969 Yale Law Journal essay. Actually, Chevigny – like many others – elides a critical distinction between “power” and “authority”: While a police officer may have the power to abduct or abuse an innocent person, citizens have the authority to prevent that crime.

Paul Randle-Jolliffe Dekins and her rescuers were blessed to live in 18th Century England, a relatively civilized society that recognized and protected a free individual’s indispensable right to resist State-licensed criminal violence.