The Four Finger Campaign was inspired by an incident that happened to my husband. I thought that I would record it here. (The hand on the logo is based on a scan of my husbands hand :) )
I would like to point out that I do not condone the course of action that Simon undertook.
However, I also acknowledge the principle behind it.
He was voicing his disatisfaction with the Police in the only way he felt left open to him.
I utterly empathise with his frustration that more 'accepted' recourses prooved to be little more than the facility to justify or discount misconduct.
More, I recognise his act as an attempt to elicit a response that would demonstrate that his supposition about policing practices were wrong. Unfortunately, they failed the test and in turn provided more evidence to support his now concrete opinion.
Here goes:
Feb 2009: My husband felt let down by the system over the past few years and as a result suffered considerable mental distress. However, he was attending university and when travelling there, he saw a police car with two officers in it to the right of him on a round about. He gave them the finger, which he believed he was entitled to under his freedom of speech and as a result, they followed him for a time before stopping him on a red route near another roundabout. There were no passers by or significant traffic.
They arrested him under section 5 of the pubic order act. Despite no verbal swearing, nor indication of violence, the officers called in further assistance. (2 vans, 8 officers) The car was left on the red route and my husband taken to the station in the back of a van. Despite my husband stating that he had to pick up our autistic son at 4pm (6 hours time) he was not released until about 8pm, without interview or his shoes on (He was actually asked to put them on outside) and issued with a PND (which they failed to do at roadside) which he refused to sign. When he asked where the car was in relation to the station, he was only told ‘outside.’ He had only 20p and no idea where he was, several miles from where he was picked up.
He eventually walked to the place but the car was not where it had been left. He called me briefly but was cut off. The phone box did not receive incoming calls, so I used the patchy information to work out which police station he had been held at. The officers there were not helpful stating that the car had not been moved. I was able to ascertain that the car had not been towed. I took my moped to the area and could not find the car. I was advised to report it stolen.
The next day, I got a phone call saying my stolen vehicle had been found. It was a couple of hundred meters away but out of sight up a no entry road. It was parked sensibly and locked with no damage. Despite this, none of the police involved would admit moving the car.
A few weeks later my husband received a notice from the DVLA requiring him to submit to a medical in light of his epilepsy. He was told that a letter from his doctor would not suffice in proving that he did not have epilepsy. Enquiries revealed that the DVLA had been falsely informed of this non existent condition by the police. Further enquiries and perusal of the custody records show that the sergeant had entered that by husband was epileptic and diabetic. My husband did not say these things and did not get to see the document before signing it. The custody records also said that his licence had been withheld which I knew to be wrong as I had it in my possession.
After several months of waiting to hear if the case would go to trial, and despite being told that he would ‘have to wait and see” a trial date was eventually set for June.
He was only given incomplete, poorly copied officer statements moments before the hearing was due to start. The Court ordered that full disclosure should occur to my husband within 14 days and adjourned the case until September. However, perusal of what was received reveal the appearance of a mysterious Asian old lady in the officers notes.
This was news to my husband and I had prepared a defence based on the fact that there were no members of the public. In fact that occasion to protest was chosen specifically because it was irrefutable as to whom the finger salute was directed at. At no time up until the date of trial was there a mention of a member of public being present. (I assure you that I insisted my husband give me a detailed account of what happened in order that I might formulate his defence.)
We finally received the papers and the covering letter was dated the 28th of August but they were again unfortunately incomplete. Disappointed that my husband would be denied his day in court again, he called the court for advice. They suggested that he may make an application the next morning to have the case dismissed.
At the same time I came across the CPS charging standard and was confused as to how my husband’s case could have ever passed it. I managed to contact the CPS and was told a few interesting things: That the case had not been signed off by a lawyer and that it was possible for the police to bypass the CPS entirely. I spoke to the head of the CPS for the court that my husband was attending, gave her details and asked her to liaise with my husband in the morning.
My husband’s application was about to be heard when the clerk informed the court that the head of cps had dropped the case due to no evidence.
It is debatable if Simons actions were wrong, but they certainly were not illegal. I believe that the officers involved were far more interested in punishing Simon for his disrespect than utilising their time and cost for issues more in the public interest.
Even today, although the four finger protest is less likely to get the initiator hauled up before a judge, I am left questioning whether as a result, it is less likely to be taken seriously.
The Damien Green affair for me is an example of where the police only considered whether they could take action and not whether they should.
