It takes only a minute or so with Jody McIntyre to realise it would take much more than the combined forces of the Metropolitan Police, the Daily Mail and the BBC to keep him down. After a week of tumult and sleeplessness, he is buoyant and focused when I meet him at his family home in East Dulwich, south London. Seven days ago, this 20-year-old political activist was at the student protests in London with his younger brother Finlay when police allegedly hit him with a baton, and pulled him from his wheelchair not once, but twice.
It was an angry and passionate demonstration,” says McIntyre, “and it was also hugely tense and hugely hostile, because there were mounted police ready to charge into the crowd.” He was at the front of a large group of protesters in Parliament Square when he was struck on the shoulder with a baton by a police officer, he says. “Then around four police officers pulled me out of my wheelchair and carried me away.”
Not long after the protests, footage emerged of the second incident which, while grainy, shows McIntyre out of his wheelchair, being pulled along the ground by police, as voices in the crowd shout “What the fuck are you doing?” and “You just tipped him over!” It’s difficult to watch without mounting horror, and the thought: has it come to this? The police dragging a man with cerebral palsy through our streets?
Not everyone had that reaction. In the Daily Mail, columnist Richard Littlejohn compared McIntyre to the Little Britain character Andy, who is notoriously monosyllabic and isn’t actually physically disabled – whenever possible, he gets up behind his carer’s back and runs around. “If [McIntyre’s] looking for sympathy, he’s come to the wrong place,” wrote Littlejohn. There also seemed a distinct lack of sympathy from the BBC, in an interview conducted by journalist Ben Brown on Monday night, that has attracted thousands of complaints. The BBC News channel controller, Kevin Bakhurst, asked why people objected to it, and the answer seems to be this: in interviewing an apparent victim of police brutality, Brown’s tone was highly accusatory. He asked whether McIntyre might have been “rolling towards” the police in his wheelchair, whether he had thrown missiles at the police, and repeatedly questioned why he hadn’t yet made a legal complaint about his treatment.
He has been on a lot of protests, on a wide range of issues, and says he has always had a political outlook, which he chronicles on his blog, Life on Wheels (“One man’s journey on the path to revolution”). He isn’t a student himself, but says he cares deeply about the issue both because “acceptance into university should be based on the merit of your grades, not the size of your wallet” and because “education is simply the first target. These cuts, this axe that the government is wielding, is going to affect everyone.”
He will therefore be on the next student protest, whenever it occurs, and is pleased that the “media myth of us as some kind of apathetic generation has been completely blown to smithereens”. But he worries about what could happen in future. “I honestly think in one of the upcoming demonstrations, if the police continue with this brutal violence, that someone will die,” he says
A disabled man has described being dragged from his wheelchair twice during the tuition fees protests. Jody McIntyre says that in the first incident he was dumped on the pavement and his chair was left in the middle of the road. The 20-year-old political activist and blogger said: ‘I was at the front of the crowd in Parliament Square. One policeman struck me on my shoulder with his baton, quite badly bruising me.‘Then four or five grabbed me, pulled me out of my wheelchair, carried me about 100 yards behind the police line and dumped me on the pavement. ‘I was sitting there for five or ten minutes, until my 16-year-old brother was allowed through with my wheelchair.’
Time magazine has picked Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg as its annual Person of the Year, the figure it believes had the most influence on events in 2010. The 26-year-old billionaire was the subject of a 2010 film, The Social Network, charting Facebook’s rise. Wikileaks founder Julian Assange earlier won a Time readers’ poll on 2010’s most influential person. The annual feature has been a fixture since the 1920s, with the winner appearing on the front cover of Time.
Issued by Trish Keville, London & South East Press Officer, 020 7166 3130
For The Record has made a Freedom of Information Request regarding the Police refusing entry of members of the public to Chelsea and Westminster Hospital.
12 December 2010 Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), I am writing to request information regarding the closure of an NHS Hospital to members of the public (Chelsea and Westminster Hospital) on December 9th 2010. It was reported that the Police refused access to members of the public who were unable to receive treatment at this hospital.
The information I require are as follows:
1) Who authorised the Police to prevent members of the public
gaining access to the above mentioned hospital? (Their name, rank
and department);
2) What date was it decided that the hospital would be closed to
members of the public (Pre-Planning);
3) Copies of any e-mails, letters or other written record regarding
this closure of a Public Hospital;
4) The reasons for closing the Hospital off to members of the
public;
5) The name/number and rank of the Police officer(s) who initially
refused Alfie Meadows entry to the hospital;
6) Any UK Statute or Case Law which gives the Police authority to
prevent the public from entering an hospital when medical attention
is required.
A former extradition specialist for the Crown Prosecution Service today predicted it would be “very difficult” for Sweden to get the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, sent back to face sexual assault allegations. Raj Joshi, a former head of the European and International Division at the CPS, said Sweden’s lack of a formal criminal charge against Assange increased his lawyers’ chances of success in blocking the extradition attempt. Assange’s lawyers are scheduled to visit him tomorrow in prison for the first time since he was jailed on remand yesterday after Sweden requested his extradition. Swedish prosecutors say they want to interview Assange about allegations of sexual assault against two women. His lawyers say they fear the US will attempt to extradite him to face charges over the release of hundreds of thousands of secret diplomatic cables though Washington has not so far taken any legal action against him.
Today, a British group campaigning for more rapists to be punished questioned the “unusual zeal” with which Assange, an Australian citizen, was being pursued over the allegations of sexual assault in Sweden. In a letter to the Guardian, Katrin Axelsson from Women Against Rape said it was routine for people charged with rape in the UK to be granted bail. Assange is yet to be formally charged by the Swedes. Axelsson also said Sweden had a poor record bringing rapists to justice: “Many women in both Sweden and Britain will wonder at the unusual zeal with which Julian Assange is being pursued for rape allegations … There is a long tradition of the use of rape and sexual assault for political agendas that have nothing to do with women’s safety.”
(1)If the judge is required to proceed under this section he must decide whether the person’s extradition to the category 1 territory is barred by reason of—.
(a)the rule against double jeopardy;.
(b)extraneous considerations;.
(c)the passage of time;.
(d)the person’s age;.
(e)hostage-taking considerations;.
(f)speciality;.
(g)the person’s earlier extradition to the United Kingdom from another category 1 territory;.
(h)the person’s earlier extradition to the United Kingdom from a non-category 1 territory..
(2)Sections 12 to 19 apply for the interpretation of subsection (1)..
(3)If the judge decides any of the questions in subsection (1) in the affirmative he must order the person’s discharge..
(4)If the judge decides those questions in the negative and the person is alleged to be unlawfully at large after conviction of the extradition offence, the judge must proceed under section 20..
(5)If the judge decides those questions in the negative and the person is accused of the commission of the extradition offence but is not alleged to be unlawfully at large after conviction of it, the judge must proceed under section 21.
(1)If the judge is required to proceed under this section (by virtue of section 11 or 20) he must decide whether the person’s extradition would be compatible with the Convention rights within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42).
(2)If the judge decides the question insubsection (1) in the negative he must order the person’s discharge.
(3)If the judge decides that question in the affirmative he must order the person to be extradited to the category 1 territory in which the warrant was issued.
(4)If the judge makes an order under subsection (3) he must remand the person in custody or on bail to wait for his extradition to the category 1 territory.
(5)If the judge remands the person in custody he may later grant bail.
A person’s extradition to a category 1 territory is barred by reason of extraneous considerations if (and only if) it appears that—
(a)the Part 1 warrant issued in respect of him (though purporting to be issued on account of the extradition offence) is in fact issued for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing him on account of his race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation or political opinions, or
(b)if extradited he might be prejudiced at his trial or punished, detained or restricted in his personal liberty by reason of his race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation or political opinions.
4TheRecord 