A round-up of retired graffiti artists for the London Olympics?

Allegations of widespread arrests denied by the British Transport Police but "Olympics" bail conditions imposed

It was the sort of information that makes one despair of the police generally and their attitude to public order matters in particular. 

According to the London Vandal website, ex-graffiti artists – most of whom had given up illegal graffiti 15 years ago – were being arrested without reason and being placed on bail conditions so as to prohibit any graffiti to do with the Olympics.

The London Vandal reported that “raids were being carried out on addresses across the length and breadth of London” and that once the arrestees “arrived at the station, the ex-graffiti writers spotted thirty or more familiar faces from the past”

The website added:

It was around then that the graffiti artists realised what point the police were trying to make with them. Having been arrested, they were questioned about what they considered petty matters – accusations of criminal damage in the ’90s, questions about websites and magazines that they were involved in. After being briefly questioned about these seemingly irrelevant matters, they were told that they were to be bailed until November on the condition that they did not use any form of railway in London (overground, tube or tram), carry spray paint (or other graffiti tools, presumably) at any time, or travel within a mile of any Olympic area.

And:

They felt that they were arrested for one reason – in order to place bail restrictions upon them that would supposedly discourage graffiti from being painted during the Olympics.

 

These allegations are serious.  It would be deeply inappropriate as well as unlawful for arrests and bail conditions to be used in such a contrived way.  Process should never be used as punishment, and nor should process be used as a means of public order control for such an ulterior motive.

However, much of the substance of the story is not supported by the British Transport Police. 

Not only do the British Transport Police (reasonably) point out that the station in question only has a custody suite for five arrested people rather than for “thirty or more familiar faces from the past”, they also provided this statement:

BTP officers arrested four men on the morning of Tuesday, 17 July, on suspicion of conspiracy to commit criminal damage.

This was in connection with a live and ongoing criminal investigation into linked incidents of criminal damage committed between January 2007 and July 2012.

Two of the men were also further arrested on suspicion of inciting criminal damage.

Arrested were:

  • A 38-year-old man from Kent
  • A 25-year-old man from Kent
  • An 18-year-old man from London
  • A 32-year-old man from Surrey

The men were taken to a police custody suite in Victoria for further questioning before being released on bail until November, with the following bail conditions:

·        Not to enter any railway system, including Tubes and trams, or be in any train, tram or Tube station or in or on any other railway property not open to the public unless to attend a written appointment with a solicitor, to attend court, for a legitimate business or educational purpose; one direct journey each way

·        Not to be in possession of any spray paint, marker pens, any grout pen, etching equipment, or unset paint

·        Not to associate or communicate with the other persons arrested and on bail for this investigation

·        Not to be at or within one mile of any Olympic venue in London or elsewhere in England

So it would appear that much of the detail of the London Vandal story is simply incorrect.  There were only four arrests, only one of which was in London, and the arrests were in relation to an ongoing and live investigation for events from 2007 to 2012.

That said, that last bail condition does seem out of place for one imposed by the British Transport Police. 

What business is it of the British Transport Police to impose as a condition that those arrested should not be "at or within one mile of any Olympic venue in London or elsewhere in England"?  That would not appear to be a matter directly relevant for those responsible for policing the transport network.

In response to the "Olympics" bail condition beinq queried, a British Transport Police spokesman said:

Investigating officers applied for the bail conditions, which were accepted by the custody sergeant. The conditions are proposed to defendants, and to any legal representation present, and they are entitled to appeal.  On this occasion no objections were made to the conditions.

The justification for the final bail condition was to prevent the commission of offences and to protect the integrity of the Olympic Games.

 

In my view, this would appear not to a sufficient or good explanation for the additional "Olympics" bail condition. 

The London Vandal seems not to be correct in much of its story; but it does appear that "Olympic" bail conditions are being imposed when people are arrested in respect of non-related matters. 

If so, that is less of an outrage than the grand round-up described.   However, it is surely not the purpose of bail conditions to exert control over conduct not relevant to the arrest and investigation.

And it is certainly should be not the proper function of any part of our criminal justice system to "protect the integrity of the Olympic Games".

 

David Allen Green is legal correspondent of the New Statesman

London graffiti: is there an Olympic crackdown? Photo: Getty Images

David Allen Green is legal correspondent of the New Statesman and author of the Jack of Kent blog.

His legal journalism has included popularising the Simon Singh libel case and discrediting the Julian Assange myths about his extradition case.  His uncovering of the Nightjack email hack by the Times was described as "masterly analysis" by Lord Justice Leveson.

David is also a solicitor and was successful in the "Twitterjoketrial" appeal at the High Court.

(Nothing on this blog constitutes legal advice.)

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Philip Hammond's house gaffe is a reminder of what the Tories lost when David Cameron left

The Chancellor of the Exchequer's blunder confirmed an old fear about the Conservative Party. 

Philip Hammond got into a spot of bother this morning describing the need for a transitional agreement with the European Union by comparing it to moving into a house, saying: "you don't necessarily move all your furniture in on the first day you buy it”.

This immediately surprised a lot of people, because for most people, you do, in fact, move all of your furniture in on the first day you buy a house. Or rent a house, or a flat, or whatever. Most people who buy houses are part of housing chains – that is, they sell their house to raise some of the capital to buy another one, or, if they are first-time buyers, they are moving from the private rented sector into a house or flat of their own.

They don’t, as a rule, have a spare bolthole for “all their furniture” to wait around in. Hammond’s analogy accidentally revealed two things – he is rich, and he owns more than one home. (I say “revealed”. Obviously these are things you can find out by checking the register of members’ interests, but they are, at least, things that are not immediately obvious hearing Hammond speak.)

That spoke to one major and recurring Conservative weakness: that people see them as a party solely for the rich. Focus groups conducted by BritainThinks consistently showed that when people were asked which group of TV families might vote Conservative, the only one that people consistently picked were the “posh couple” from GoggleBox.

David Cameron’s great achievement as Conservative leader was in winning two elections – the first, in 2010, the most successful night for the Conservatives since 1931, with 97 gains overall, the second, their first parliamentary majority for 23 years – despite being a graduate of Eton and Oxford leading a party that most voters fear will only look out for the rich.

He did it by consistently speaking and acting as if he were significantly less well-to-do than he was. Even his supposed 2013 gaffe when asked what the price of bread was – when he revealed that he preferred to use a breadmaker – projected a more down-to-earth image than his background suggested His preferred breadmaker cost a hundred quid and could easily have been found in any upper-middle class home in any part of his country. One of Cameron’s great successes was in presenting himself as an affable upper-middle-class dad to the nation, when he was in fact, well-to-do enough to employ a literal breadmaker had he so chosen.

This is slightly unfair on Philip Hammond who went to a state school in Essex and is by any measure less posh than Cameron. But his gaffe speaks to their big post Cameron problem (and indeed their big pre-Cameron problem) which is that while many conservative ideas are popular, the Conservative Party isn’t. Most of their big politicians are a turn-off, not a turn-on.

And until they can find a genuine replacement for David Cameron, miserable results like 2017 may become the norm, rather than the exception. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.

0800 7318496