This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/oct/23/activists-condemn-arrest-tibetan-pair-waving-flag-xi-jinping-met-police-chinese-president

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Activists condemn arrest of Tibetan pair for waving flag at Xi Jinping motorcade Xi Jinping protesters arrested and homes searched over London demonstrations
(about 3 hours later)
Tibetan activists in Britain said they were appalled that two Tibetan women were arrested and had their homes searched for merely waving a flag at a motorcade carrying China’s president, Xi Jinping. Dissidents from China and Tibet have accused British police of significant overreaction after they were arrested under public order laws and had their houses searched following peaceful protests against the visiting Chinese president, Xi Jinping.
The lawyer for the arrested women – Sonam Choden, 31, and Jamphel Lhamo, 33 – said in 40 years of legal experience he had never heard of people being arrested under public order laws just for flag-waving. Shao Jiang, a survivor of the Tiananmen Square massacre now based in the UK, said he was shocked to be tackled by police after holding placards in front of Xi’s motorcade in London, and to learn his home had been searched and computers seized while he was in custody.
Police arrested the pair on Wednesday evening outside Mansion House in London, where a reception was being held for Xi during his state visit to the UK. Police said the women were suspected “of conspiracy to commit threatening behaviour”. “It feels like it was when I was in China,” Shao told the Guardian. “Then, every time I was arrested the Chinese police would search my rooms and take things. It reminded me of that.”
At the same event an exiled Chinese dissident and survivor of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, Shao Jiang, was also arrested after being tackled as he ran towards Xi’s car. It is understood that Choden and Lhamo were only waving a Tibetan flag when arrested. Tibetan exile groups have also reacted with anger following the arrest of two women shortly after Shao for waving a Tibetan flag near Xi’s car, and had their homes searched while they were under arrest.
While in custody, both their homes were searched, and computer equipment seized. The same happened to Shao. The lawyer for the arrested women – Sonam Choden, 31, and Jamphel Lhamo, 33 – said in 40 years of legal experience he had never heard of police arresting people who were protesting peacefully for conspiring to contravene section 5 of the Public Order Act, which concerns harassment or threatening behaviour.
Their lawyer, Bill Nash of BSB Solicitors, said he had never previously heard of people undertaking a peaceful protest being arrested under section 5 of the Public Order Act, which concerns threatening or abusive behaviour. The Met police have reacted strongly to the accusations. In an unusual step, the force released a statement from the officer in charge of policing Xi’s visit, Commander Lucy D’Orsi, saying she was “disappointed” at suggestions the force was trying to suppress legitimate protest at the instigation of China.
“My clients were arrested for what was a peaceful and what many would see as a legitimate non-violent protest concerning the treatment of their country by the Chinese regime,” he said. Police say they believe Shao and the women had been conspiring to commit threatening behaviour; all three reject this claim.
“Despite the fact that no one suggests that any violence was contemplated or offered a decision was taken to further arrest for an offence of conspiracy to contravene section 5 of the Public Order Act of 1986. In over 40 years of legal practice I have never previously heard of an arrest for such an offence. The arrests took place on Wednesday afternoon as a motorcade carrying Xi and David Cameron arrived at Mansion House in London for a ceremonial banquet. Video shows Shao being tackled forcefully by officers as he stood near the cars holding two small placards. Choden and Lhamo were arrested soon afterwards while waving a flag.
“This smacks of overreaction to a considerable degree. Perhaps it is time that we should focus some of our concentration on our own civil liberties at the same time as we criticise others for their stance on human rights.” Shao’s wife, Joanna Zhang, dismissed the idea that the trio were planning to threaten anyone. “That’s complete nonsense,” she said. “He was on his own, doing nothing apart from holding two A4 sheets of paper, one saying ‘End autocracy’ and the other saying ‘Democracy now’. He was standing there peacefully when the police attacked him.”
Zhang said she went to a police station on Wednesday evening to bring her husband new clothes and returned home to find Met police officers had searched the address in her absence, seizing two computers, an iPad and a USB stick.
“It happened when I was at the police station, but they never told me they were doing this,” Zhang said. “I only knew because the computers had gone and there was a warrant paper on my desk.”
Neither she nor her husband knew what police were looking for on the computers, or when they would get the possessions returned, Zhang said. “The warrant paper had a phone number on it, but they had left the wrong number,” she said.
“It’s quite shocking. We went into exile in 1997, first to Sweden and then the UK, and life in exile has been quiet so far,” she added. “I never imagined that what happened to us in China could happen here in the UK.”
The two Tibetan women also had their houses searched and computer equipment seized while they were in custody. Their lawyer, Bill Nash of BSB Solicitors, said the pair had been arrested for “a peaceful and what many would see as a legitimate non-violent protest concerning the treatment of their country by the Chinese regime”.
Nash added: “Despite the fact that no one suggests that any violence was contemplated or offered, a decision was taken to further arrest for an offence of conspiracy to contravene section 5 of the Public Order Act of 1986. In over 40 years of legal practice I have never previously heard of an arrest for such an offence.”
Police said in a statement they had reason to believe the arrested women were connected to Shao and that all three were conspiring to commit threatening behaviour. However, Tibetan groups said this was not true.Police said in a statement they had reason to believe the arrested women were connected to Shao and that all three were conspiring to commit threatening behaviour. However, Tibetan groups said this was not true.
“This was a spontaneous protest, and there was no link between the Tibetan women and Shao Jiang,” said Padma Dolma from Students for a Free Tibet. “It’s simply not true for the police to say they were conspiring to do anything threatening. In our experience that is a common police tactic to stop people protesting.”“This was a spontaneous protest, and there was no link between the Tibetan women and Shao Jiang,” said Padma Dolma from Students for a Free Tibet. “It’s simply not true for the police to say they were conspiring to do anything threatening. In our experience that is a common police tactic to stop people protesting.”
Shao on Friday tweeted a photograph of his bail condiitions, showing he is not allowed within a mile of Heathrow airport; the prime minister’s country residence, Chequers; or within 100 metres of Xi, to “prevent further harassment of the victim”.
Goodbye #XiJinping ! pic.twitter.com/TPZ3snUPlIGoodbye #XiJinping ! pic.twitter.com/TPZ3snUPlI
In a joint statement released by the Tibetan Community in Britain group, the women said they “never expected to be arrested or to have to spend 24 hours in police custody” just for waving a flag. Shao tweeted a photograph of his bail conditions, showing he is not allowed within a mile of Heathrow airport; the prime minister’s country residence, Chequers; or within 100 metres of Xi, to “prevent further harassment of the victim”.
Tsering Passang, its chairman, said: “While I welcome Sonam and Jamphel’s release, these two Tibetan women should never have been arrested in the first place. The Met said Shao was initially arrested after entering a “secure area” around the motorcade, and officers then suspected a link between him and the Tibetan activists. All were arrested under common law to prevent a breach of the peace, before “further information” led officers to suspect an offence of conspiracy to commit threatening behaviour under the Public Order Act. All three had been bailed until a later date, it added.
“The Metropolitan police have completely overreacted to Sonam and Jamphel’s small and spontaneous protest. I am appalled that their homes were searched in the night of 21 October while they were in police custody. Any belongings of theirs confiscated, such as laptops, phones and USB sticks, should be immediately returned.” The subsequent statement by D’Orsi said she felt some reports intimated the police were “working to the bidding of the Chinese to suppress protest”. She continued: “The policing of the state visit was a matter for the Metropolitan police service and any other suggestion is wrong. My team and I have worked tirelessly to facilitate peaceful protest throughout the state visit.
The Met said the arrest under the Public Order Act was separate to the flag waving, and “to suggest we were doing anything but the regular police work associated with public order and ceremonial events is wrong”. “The assertion that political manipulation of the command team or, indeed, the broader Metropolitan police took place is wrong and doesn’t reflect the facts.”
A police spokesperson said Shao was suspected of “having breached a secure area” around the motorcade. “Initial investigations revealed a suspected connection to two other persons who were also arrested to prevent a breach of the peace. The arrest to prevent a breach of the peace is made under common law.
“Further information gathered by officers during these initial stages of the investigation led officers to suspect that an offence of conspiracy to commit threatening behaviour had been committed (contrary to section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 and section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986) so the individuals were further arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to commit threatening behaviour.
“The homes of the arrested persons were searched for evidence in relation to the suspected offence of conspiracy to commit threatening behaviour by virtue of section 18 of the Police & Criminal Evidence Act.
“All three persons have now been bailed to return to a London police station at a later date whilst investigations continue. Throughout the state visit, the Metropolitan police service has facilitated peaceful protest at all the various events and ceremonies.”