Thought Police?

Over one hundred protesters were held today regarding criminal damage inflicted on a coal-burning power station...

Oh sorry I'll try that again.

Over one hundred protesters were held today regarding aggravated trespass at a coal-burning power station...

Damn one more time.

Over one hundred people were held today regarding a planned protest that might possibly have included aggravated trespass and criminal damage at a coal-burning power station.

Well that's according to the Guardian anyway. If you were watching the news all you'd have heard was that after police "swooped" in people were being held and questioned over planning a protest and that "specialist equipment" had been found that suggested this protest was to be held at said power station. Not a single peep about why that story, as they describe it, might be considered a little odd.

Now hey I'm all for crime prevention, but if you simply followed the television news snippets no crime was either committed or even mentioned. It appears said reports were simply taking it as given that the police had a right to hold people who were planning a protest.

If the police can provide evidence a priori to questioning that the planned protest was set to intentionally cause a criminal act then well done to them for preventing it; if they can't then questions have to be asked; just don't expect the television media to do it.

[Update - I love the Daily Mash - Four million people arrested on suspicion of littering "If they weren't planning to commit a crime then why did they buy the crisps?" asks police spokesman]

[Update - From the BBC. The force spokeswoman stated "From the information gathered, police believe that those arrested were planning a period of prolonged disruption to the safe running of Ratcliffe-On-Soar power station" uh-huh and that's illegal for what reason? [Aggravated trespass]

If any form of disruption prevents the safe running of a power station you shut the station down; or is that illegal now?

Weirdly despite the fact they were apparently arrested on "suspicion of conspiracy to commit aggravated trespass and criminal damage" they've been bailed. So presumably the police don't believe that they need to be detained in order to prevent them from committing aggravated trespass or criminal damage; which was the reason they were arrested and would be a reason for refusing bail?

Oh and finally we discover that bolt-cutters now carry the cachet of "specialist equipment" damn someone needs to tell B&Q it appears they'll sell them to anyone who walks in to the store.]