I found this interesting, after the conversation upthread:
"The law lords said theirs was a "pragmatic approach" that took into account the reason police decided to contain the demonstrators. However, for containment to be lawful, they ruled police must use the tactic in good faith, proportionately and for no longer than is necessary.
"Recently, it emerged that Met commanders at the G20 were unaware of their legal obligations in the Austin ruling. They also appear to have authorised containing protesters from the outset, and before there had been any significant cases of violence from people."
Law Lords' ruling challenged in ECHR tomorrow:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jul/19/metropolitan-police-kettling-human-rights
I found this interesting, after the conversation upthread:
"The law lords said theirs was a "pragmatic approach" that took into account the reason police decided to contain the demonstrators. However, for containment to be lawful, they ruled police must use the tactic in good faith, proportionately and for no longer than is necessary.
"Recently, it emerged that Met commanders at the G20 were unaware of their legal obligations in the Austin ruling. They also appear to have authorised containing protesters from the outset, and before there had been any significant cases of violence from people."