IamA 2010 Student Protester who was tried in the Old Bailey and we just settled a claim with the Met Police for £50,000 - AMA!

Why one earth would anyone take you seriously with a guy fawkes mask on?

Well, here is my answer to a similar question below:

First of all, I wasn't a law student at the protest, and wore one at the time (we also had Strength Through Unity on one side of our placard) - we thought it was mildly humorous to wear them at the time.

Later on, they became a key point in our case, as the officer on the horse actually attacked us before he fell off, by ripping off our masks (an assault - they can't even ask you to take them off in the street without high level authorisation under PACE) - my glasses came off at the same time.

So, it's really a hark back to that - and we weren't looking to be taken massively seriously on our own at the time.

So you were a protesting tourist. Why do it with out conviction? Does that not belittle genuine protest?

Not sure where you get that idea - I was an NUS rep the year before at my university, was one of the people at Parliament when the politicians signed the pledges, campaigned on behalf of the lib dems along with many others, and joined protests in both Manchester and London.

The fact that we took to the protest with a little humor isn't unusual in the UK, there were all sorts of humorous placards, including one saying "Dumbledore wouldn't stand for this". One of the things we are especially proud of is our strange national sense of humor.

Have you ever drank Bailey's from a shoe?

I've never drank Bailey's, in fact I don't drink much at all - I tend to be depressive when drunk!

In the states, most settlements of this nature preclude you from (1) talking about them to people who aren't directly involved and (2) speaking negatively, even if it's implicit, against the other party.

Does your settlement have a similar clause?

Specifically this:

However, everything after - evidence being hidden and covered up, witnesses changing their statements on the stand from trial to trial to cover up for wrongful uses of batons, police telling direct and provable lies on the stand (5ft 5inch officer standing on the wrong side of the horse saw the entire incident THROUGH THE HORSE), and more, is entirely inexcusable.

Would screw you over quite a bit in my district.

In the UK, gagging clauses are expensive, and we wouldn't have taken a settlement with one included. So no, we have no issues with talking about the case (bar the usual issues of slander, libel, etc).

As for the actual points outlined by me:

• The court had an apology from the prosecution about one piece of evidence they hid from us
• We have trial transcripts that clearly show witnesses changing evidence significantly between trials
• Witnesses (other police officers) in one instance gave evidence that directly contravened the statements given by another officer with regards to baton use
• The court accepted the position of the defense in several of these issues

I'm being careful, and not saying anything that I can't back up with significant evidence. Thanks for the concern though!

Have you spoken to other police officers independent of the case, what were their thoughts? I hate the idea of officers sticking together regardless of what actually happened.

Some have been deeply concerned about the conduct of the police, some have been dismissive, and a few have been rather aggressive.

The good ones have been very helpful, and given us help along the way - we even took advice from a serving Met officer before the protest, and his help was invaluable during the day and after.

One officer even went as far as to come and support us at the second police station interview.

So, it's been a bit of a mix - but then the Met are seen as being out of control even within other police forces, and their public order unit especially so.

Most important question: did you deliberately wear the same shirt from the Channel 4 interview in the proof photo so we'd know it was definitely you?

Serious question: What's with the guy fawkes mask? Really? I'm not being facetious, but you're studying law and the guy fawkes mask kind of makes it hard to take those who wear it seriously anymore. It's a symbol of faux activism. I would assume after what you've been through - combined with my assumptions of your ideals based on the mask - that there's a slight juxtaposition between law and disorder.

Extra question: What do you think about those who were responsible for the vandalism and criminal damage caused by the riots? Do you feel it was acceptable? Do you feel it helped your cause or actually hindered it, considering the public's perception of the protests was tainted as a result?

Most important question

Yes, yes I did. And the same layout of things on the table. Mostly because they hadn't been moved since the interview!

Serious question

First of all, I wasn't a law student at the protest, and wore one at the time (we also had Strength Through Unity on one side of our placard) - we thought it was mildly humorous to wear them at the time.

Later on, they became a key point in our case, as the officer on the horse actually attacked us before he fell off, by ripping off our masks (an assault - they can't even ask you to take them off in the street without high level authorisation under PACE) - my glasses came off at the same time.

So, it's really a hark back to that - and we weren't looking to be taken massively seriously on our own at the time.

Extra question

That's a complicated question in some respects. I think that there were many young and inexperienced people who got caught up in the moment, and did things that they almost certainly regretted later - arrested or not.

And yes, I do think that it somewhat hindered the movement - but on the other side, Milbank showed how high the tensions and feelings were from the students, and kept the story on the front page.

Many of the students felt robbed, to put it bluntly. We were promised that the lib dems would vote to get rid of tuition fees entirely, and they went the other way, ignoring those pledges.

I was actually one of the NUS reps that went to Parliament to get the pledges signed, on behalf of Teesside University.

So the anger, the frustration, and the injustice pouring out, as well as the police kettling a peaceful demonstration and then doing a full cavalry charge into a tightly packed crowd... I can understand where those actions came from.

That's not saying I condone them however.

I hope that answers your questions!

full cavalry charge into a tightly packed crowd.

This is something I've never understood. Being an old campaigner I was usually to be found on Anti-National Front Demos back in the late 70s. One in particular comes to mind. The weekend before Blair Peach was killed by a blow from a Police Officer, we were all in Leicester for a peaceful demo. The number of racist comments from the Police was just the usual 'banter' that was common back then but the demo went off without any trouble.

After the event everyone was gathered peacefully in a nearby park and the leaders of the local Asian and Caribbean communities were giving thank you speeches to us for having come to support them against the threats from the Front.

The whole atmosphere was pretty calm, people just standing, listening and applauding etc. We noticed that a line of mounted Police was forming around the edge of the park and thought nothing of it until they started charging into the peaceful crowd.

Running from a police horse going at a fairly brisk pace was pretty fucking scary - but there was this whole question of why the fuck did whoever was in charge think it was necessary to charge into a peaceful crowd after any possible flashpoint of violence had already passed...

Maybe it was what the Police just did back then, or an angry senior copper hell bent on proving a point but it was the only part of the day that was in any way violent...

If I was to be paranoid and conspiratorial, I'd say that Theresa May had been taking about slashing police budgets, and the police wanted to show that they were needed - preferably right outside Parliament.

I'd also note that after the incident, the cuts to the Met were put off for a year, and then put off again after the riots.

But that would be really paranoid, wouldn't it? I mean, it's not like the police and CPS were actually out to get me...

I'd like to add that I have no specific evidence of this, but it's an interesting thought, and be the basis for an interesting TV drama - although that level of planning may be giving the police too much credit.

Alan Bleasdale's 1991 TV drama G.B.H proposes a more plausible character to create this tension. An undercover MI5 operative who as part of a militant union pretty much creates the whole momentum for the strike and the ensuing violence to justify more policing and simultaneously discredit a local political opponent of the then PM.

bleh there's an extra ) that I can't work out how to include in the url..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.B.H._(TV_series)

Well worth a watch if you can hold of a copy.

Otherwise my money is on the Occam's razor in these situations; incompetence and panic, usually an inexperienced Police Chief left in charge at the wrong moment.

I think Hillsborough gives a good insight into this. The silence that followed and the deflection of the blame on the supporters was the conspiratorial part, but it was just incompetence that really caused the whole disaster.

Otherwise my money is on the Occam's razor in these situations; incompetence and panic, usually an inexperienced Police Chief left in charge at the wrong moment.

I would usually hold to Occam's razor, but the sheer level and number of abuses we saw was almost a performed dance, practiced over and over again. In fact, the lines in the police statements were carbon copies of those copied from the statements of officers at Orgreave as retold in Michel Mansfield's book - "it was the worst disorder in 20 years of service", "hail of missiles", and more. This is what leads me to that conclusion - well, that and the fact that a number of officers stated six months before the riots that there would be disorder on the streets of London that summer because the Met wanted there to be.

I also think that with the police, the only way to root out the corruption is to treat every wrong act as malicious for a while, purely to exorcise the cancer that has been growing within - doctors don't leave in tissue that they think may in any way be cancerous when they operate. We should show the same level of mercy with police corruption.

How was your life negatively (or positively) affected by the accusations/publicity against you?

Also, you you actually care if DC makes a public apology or not?

Well, in activist circles, my profile went up a bit, and it has allowed me to become known in legal circles - which is good, as I plan to work in criminal defense in the future (if there is anything left of legal aid by the time I finish my training).

Negitively, it means that some people recognise me and ask me if I really did it ^nudge nudge^, and are slightly disappointed when I tell them, no I didn't pull a police officer off his horse - he attempted to lift me up by my hair, hadn't done his saddle up properly, and promptly fell off.

I would like Cameron to at least acknowledge that he should stay away from commenting on cases that are in progress, and that he would think more carefully next time about how he speaks in similar situations. I think that he damaged the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" somewhat in our case, and could very well have had an impact on our juries.

Even a nice card or letter through the post would be a good gesture.

Do I think it will happen? Well, I didn't think we would have a PM who had allegations around sex of a porcine nature last week... so we shall see.

he attempted to lift me up by my hair, hadn't done his saddle up properly, and promptly fell off.

That's kinda funny. Karmic retribution.

It kind of was! You could say Newton won the battle for me!

Somew horses have a sneaky habit of inhaling when you put the saddle on and strap it up so when they let their breath out it's loser. I'm wondering if this cop was inexperienced and let this happen to him.

He wasn't inexperienced - he actually trained mounted officers, and had served for over twenty years, and knew the horse well.

However, you are right, he hadn't tightened up the girth the second time, which is what lead to the dismount. However, there is a question with regards to my weight and his pulling, on whether the saddle would have slipped any way - as I weigh eighteen stone. The Mythbusters Jailbreak episode where a saddle slip occurred poses this as a potentially interesting question. And yes, we did look at using Mythbusters as evidence!

Why did you settle?

Because they gave us as much as they were going to, and taking risk into account, the offer was a fair one - it made no financial sense to take it any further, and court is a huge gamble.

What we got, realistically, was a fair assessment of what we would likely win in court, if we won. This settlement means no wasting money, court time, police finances etc.

It's a pity private criminal prosecution is so difficult - it's hard to imagine there's no case for perjury.

I did look at it, and in the position I'm in, as a law student with plenty of contacts, I could go for it - but it's very expensive, and many people (potentially making up a great deal of a jury) still have the opinion that we need to give the police a wide remit as they do a "very hard job".

And while I don't disagree that their job is fantastically hard and challenging, never mind frustrating, I do think that we need to hold them to high standards, otherwise we get cases like ours far too frequently.

There is also the issue that the DPP can actually remove private prosecutions from you, and let the case go - although there was a recent ruling on that with regards to a private prosecution of a Met officer that handed control of the case back to the individual who brought it forward.

It's also a pity they can't prosecute for assault and abduction. The police just aren't held to the same rules as the rest of us

Hi Allie! (For full disclosure, a friend of mine)

We could have prosecuted for a large number of things criminally, and assault and battery was up there - but the six month time limit on those prosecutions expired long ago, and we would have to request special dispensation to try them on that charge.

What we would have gone for (if I was crazy enough), is perjury, misconduct in a public office, and attempting to pervert the course of public justice against several officers.

The final issue is that if a judge decides that your case doesn't have enough merit, you are forced to pay both defense and court costs - which can be a hefty bill at the end. The likelihood of this is increased when you consider that many of the judiciary are fairly conservative leaning and police supporting - which is almost reasonable considering what they see on a day-to-day basis. It's hard not to get jaded, and that's why we have a jury after all.

I'm going to be the guy to ask this:

What do you plan to do with £25k?

Well, first of all, it'll be going towards the cost of my post-grad professional qualifications.

Apart from that chunk, I plan to build a gaming rig (as a certified member of PC Master Race), a small media server, and do some traveling - mainly around Europe, and a trip to see the northern lights is definitely on the cards.

Finally, there are some people and groups who have worked hard to support us through the case, and we will be doing somthing towards them.

Pretty much what I would do if I was in your position.

Can you clarify what you mean on the last bit? Are you planning to use the money towards them or your time/effort? If it's the former, could you explain how do you plan to use that money to support the groups and people?

For the groups, I'll likely put some money towards their campaigns to fund printing of bust cards etc - these were a massive help to us, as was much of the help that the groups gave to us.

I'm already giving time etc to several groups, doing things like court support for other activists in a similar position.

As for the people, small thankyou gifts will likely be finding their way to them. I've not settled on exactly what though.

So any idea if Pig fuckers going to apologize?

No idea, I'm afraid.

Whats your local MP been like?

My local MP is George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer.

One letter from him stated that a large number of protesters that day had set out to commit offenses, and effectively wrote us off as criminals. That was a letter to my grandmother, a Conservative club and party member. Still. And she still reads the Daily Mail. It's the shame of the family.

are you going to respond back and ask him if he still thinks you're a criminal?

We are considering our possible actions, and yes, that is a potential one. The problem is, Gran still wants to shield Gideon, and thinks he can be reformed. Well, we all have to cling on to some fantasy as we go on. (sorry Gran...)

Hello. I'm a Mexican, and form part of a group that protests against the disappearance (and presumed murder) of 43 young students by the hand of the local police. Me and my group are taking too much time on organising our concrete objetives with the group. Some goals sound too good to achieve and some other goals just sound stupid. My question is, which are the steps that you recommend we take to organise a group of young students with the same interests? How do you keep it real?

I've heard about the incident, and found it shocking. You're taking a big responsibility on, and I'm sure it's daunting for you.

First of all, make small goals, medium goals, and final goals -

Small goals

These are things like updating the website, getting posts on social media, and keeping things up-to-date. Getting followers and supporters on facebook and twitter can actually give you a base of support that you can use to challenge politicians, and messages of solidarity and support can help you through tough days.

Medium Goals

Do you have a politician you want to get as an ambassador for your group? A star that you want as your patron? Or do you want to run some events and conferences around issues surrounding police corruption and gang violence? How about joining with other groups to do this?

Defend The Right To Protest are a good potential model for these goals, with John McDonnell MP supporting them, yearly conferences, good support with other groups, and great medium term goals. This is similar for Open Rights Group.

Big goals

These are things like inquests, official investigations, and even criminal charges being brought - these are what you really want.

The fact of the matter is that these are hard to win, and will take many years - good groups to look at are the groups are the campaigners around the Hillsborough disaster who are only now getting a full inquiry into the deaths of their loved ones, many years later, and United Friends and Families who campaign around deaths in police custody, and have had some success through the years.

I can tell you that this will not be easy, and that you should all plan for a long campaign - you need to make sure everyone understands that, watch out for burn-out, and take seriously the need for self-care.

Solidarity and support. Chris Hilliard

What would have happened to you had you lost the case?

Five years in prison and an unlimited fine are the worst outcomes for our charges - Violent Disorder, a step down from Riot.

We would have definitely been incarcerated for at least six months, it would have restricted world-wide travel significantly (closing down travel to the US and Australia almost entirely, for example), would have impacted us on potential jobs in the future (for example, my brother is looking at getting an alcohol licence). The effects are really quite wide ranging.

Why would they stop travel to Austrailia when it was the criminal dumping ground?

Now Australia are very restrictive on immigration, and visa travel - so are many of the commonwealth countries.

America is still an issue for travel, as their bar for not getting an automatic waiver to enter is arrest for offenses that come under "moral turpitude" (which they refuse to define), meaning that every time I want to go to America, I have to fill out a form, pay £50, send them my criminal record, and go to the embassy for an interview. All because one police officer decided to attack us.

What do you think the reason is for the inaccurate evidence provided by the officers? There are many people who consider the human brain to be easily fooled, and in many cases it actually creates images in the mind to fit what is expected. Do you hold a grudge against the police for their actions? What is your opinion of the court system?

Let's go with the easiest first - although you've only asked hard questions to answer.

The court system

I think there are flaws, holes, and abuses that get used constantly, and even the court design can have a huge impact on a jury. Glass Cages In The Dock gives a fantastic view on that, and is really worth a good read for anyone interested in the criminal justice system. That alone makes me wonder about how much our first trial was impacted by the fact we were in the grandest of criminal courts - The Old Bailey, usually reserved for the worst crimes.

I think these holes are so important that I'm working on research to document them and look at how to defend against them.

On the other hand, it's the jury that really pins down our justice system, and it's somthing that I really feel passionate about defending - I truly trust a jury, and would go for a jury trial again and again over a judge ruling on guilt.

Evidence

Witness evidence is notoriously difficult, and I don't think any of it is that fantastic - which is why video evidence is so important. However, it's also important to realise that people's inaccuracies and curiosities in their statements are what make them important, as they frequently show minute and important details, and show that their evidence is real.

This is why witnesses are usually separated and are asked not to talk between themselves about their statements - it's important to note that this is the opposite of how the police operate with their own evidence. They sat round a table and wrote their statements together. This is part of why it becomes a conspiracy and malicious prosecution.

We have clear evidence that they created statements that were both obviously false and provable, never mind material to the case. Had they not done that, there would have never been a trial in the first case. One of the officers who was on the wrong side of a 16 hands high horse, and 5ft5 tall, said she saw the entire event - leading to later family jokes about a secret police super-hero squad gone wrong.

With everything that happened, I wish it could be put down to incompetence rather than maliciousness as Occam's Razor suggests, but the breadth of the abuses and malfeasance clearly point to somthing far greater.

As for holding a grudge - I certainly want some form of justice, mainly so this doesn't happen again to someone else who is innocent, and I do feel some anger and frustration towards the police as a whole. Some of my family hold a significant grudge, and will do for a long time, however. These police officers were clearly willing to lie and corroborate each other's evidence to protect officers who had committed criminal acts from the repercussions of their actions. Even if that meant a potential of five years in prison for each myself and my brother.

Do you think it would help you to spend some time with a police officer on their daily duties and see what it's actually like to be one?

Well, first of all I know a good number of officers, have a parent who has worked as both a call handler and radio opp, and have a good understanding of what goes on - I've also had some experience of the criminal defense side with work experience at a law firm.

At this point, I struggle to be anywhere near an officer in uniform, and am completely on edge, watching where their hands are in relation to their batons, and generally feeling very stressed around them. I would actually have to seriously think if I'd want to report a crime to the police.

So, I'm afraid at this point I don't think it would be somthing that would help my perceptions of the police - body cameras on all officers and more prosecutions of rouge officers would do far more.

old bailey?

Old Bailey - the Central Criminal Court, a famous building with lots of history, built on the land where Newgate Prison used to stand. We were tried in Court 17, with a plaque outside dedicated to the Jury in Bushel's Case, the case in which a jury refused to convict two men (one of them went on to found Pennsylvania), were imprisoned, and it cemented the right of a jury to decide on the guilt of a defendant freely, without threat of punishment for their verdict.

The court is well worth a look around, as they run tours and the building is stunning.

Are you going to keep your ponytail if you become a lawyer? Anecdotally a law friends of mine said that he only knew of one judge with long hair.

Personally, I say "Fuck it" and keep it.

I know several male lawyers with long hair, and one or two women with bright pink hair. I've not had a problem so far, and have had a lot of contact with the lawyers in the area I want to work in.

Are the individual police officers involved facing any disciplinary procedures for their obvious lies?

No officer has faced any disciplinary procedures what so ever - even when we were told that all would be put under criminal investigation, meaning none of them could retire, get a promotion, or any other method of leaving the force. It never happened and one of the officers retired during the 'investigation'.

One officer was sent for re-training for being rude. That's the sum total of the outcome of their internal investigation.

Considering we supplied a mountain of evidence, it makes you wonder how they manage to investigate anything.

Which University are you studying at? Also can I buy you a pint one day? (I live/study in Manchester)

BPP University by the theater on oxford road, and I'm definately up for a meetup!

Once the police showed up and were telling people to go/moving in, what made you stay?

Also how do you feel that the protests didn't really accomplish what they set out to do, what are views to protesting now?

I've answered the first part of your question further down, so I've copied it in below.

As for how I feel about protests?

Well, yes, this didn't succeed, but it did show that the youth ARE interested in politics, and that we can unite as a block. It's been useful in that respect alone.

As for how I view protests now? They are a part of a strategy, but shouldn't be the entire strategy.

I've been involved in the fight to protect legal aid, and have organised marches and demonstrations with the lawyers, and they do two things:

• They rally the people involved, and show that they are not alone - giving strength to the movement as a whole.
• They are great for publicity, and have got us local and national media coverage where there was little before.

They can succeed, and have in other places and at other times, hat you really have to ask is why you are doing the protest and what you want to accomplish with it - don't just do a protest or a march because everyone does them.

So, here are the events as they happened - I'd like to point out that when we asked for the police radio command logs, they were massively redacted down to two commands for the entire protest. We managed to get this information from the police helicopter footage and other footage. This also goes entirely against the narrative the police laid out after the event.

First of all, there was a stop at the front of the protest, going down whitehall - the police were concerned about a crush situation, and the command came over the radio "as previously discussed, let the students in to Parliament Square". This was from Silver Command, and when questioned what would have happened had we not entered, Bronze command said that they would have made us enter.

We then went in to Parliament square, which was a dead end, with the grassed area cordoned off with six-foot fencing - the students got worried about a crush, and some of them took down the fencing. This was then (regrettably) used as weapons, or as shields from the use of police over-arm baton use - we saw at least one major head wound to what appeared to be a sixteen year old girl.

Then, from the front (we have video to show this) one officer on a loud hailer called out "if you want to leave, leave by the rear - this is not a containment".

At that point, you can see on the helicopter footage the entire crowd changed direction, and headed towards Broad Sanctuary - it's worth noting at this point that the exit was actually whitehall, and that Broad Sanctuary was a full cordon.

The police across Broad Sanctuary then thought they were under a planned attack, fell back a few times (in a similar way to the officers leading us in to Parliament Square), and then the front line disappeared - they had pulled back to let the horses charge in.

It's in this charge that I was attacked and arrested.

That is when the serious disorder from the students kicked in - effectively in defense and retaliation from the charge, and the baton use.

To sum it all up, on the day it was down to a series of communication issues (commands were taking 30min to percolate to bronze officers, never mind anyone else), and police screw-ups - the bronze commander that was questioned was in command of the officer with the loud hailer, and was shocked when we showed him that video.

However, everything after - evidence being hidden and covered up, witnesses changing their statements on the stand from trial to trial to cover up for wrongful uses of batons, police telling direct and provable lies on the stand (5ft 5inch officer standing on the wrong side of the horse saw the entire incident THROUGH THE HORSE), and more, is entirely inexcusable. Quite frankly, the level of police collusion and corruption is startling.

1. tits or arse?

2. Dogs or Cats?

3. Who do you think will win Big Brother this year?

4. Have you ever ripped the label off of your mattress?

5. If you could fight any public figure right now, who would it be?

6. If a homeless person asked you for a cigarrette, would you give him it, or would you refuse to contribute to his eventual death of cancer, but break his heart, or would you acquiesce?

7. Every action, and indeed every thought you have invariably leads to the heat death of the universe, and with it, all molecular motion will come to an end. With this fact in mind. What will you have for dinner tonight?

8. Hasn’t history proven that Marx’s vision of an egalitarian utopia is unattainable, inevitably creating an oligarchy more oppressive to the proletariat than the bourgeoisie it vilifies?

tits or arse?

Purely on that, breasts, but brains are far more attractive to me.

Dogs or Cats?

Cats all the way.

Who do you think will win Big Brother this year?

No idea, don't watch it.

Have you ever ripped the label off of your mattress?

No.

If you could fight any public figure right now, who would it be?

I'm terrible in a fight, and have RSI in both wrists, so unless I could choose a second, it's not going to go well - so I wouldn't.

If a homeless person asked you for a cigarrette, would you give him it, or would you refuse to contribute to his eventual death of cancer, but break his heart, or would you acquiesce?

Pass him it if I had one - the fact that someone cares to improve his quality of life, stop his craving, and give him that human interaction, is more likely to improve his quality of life than the refusal. Plus there are far greater risks to his health and life than tobacco while living on the streets.

Every action, and indeed every thought you have invariably leads to the heat death of the universe, and with it, all molecular motion will come to an end. With this fact in mind. What will you have for dinner tonight?

Meatfeast pizza with a side of garlic bread - it's in the fridge waiting for me.

Hasn’t history proven that Marx’s vision of an egalitarian utopia is unattainable, inevitably creating an oligarchy more oppressive to the proletariat than the bourgeoisie it vilifies?

Well, living in the city where Carl Marx started exploring the treatment of the underclasses, and also seeing the surveillance state creating an oppressive oligarchy under capitalism, I don't think it's entirely unattainable, I just think it will take far longer to get society to a point that we can realise that kind of collectivism than he or anyone else realised.

Could I have some money m8?

I'm afraid not - it's not even coming through for another few weeks, and even then I've got to save the majority of it for my professional qualifications next year.

How do you rate your solicitors? How was the legal admin side of the case for you? Why did you choose your solicitors?

We had two solicitors firms, one for the criminal side, and one for the civil side.

For the criminal side, we had Bindmans, Laura Higgs in particular. They did fantastic work, gathered tonnes of evidence for us, and worked spectacularly hard for us - far harder than the legal aid rates they were on pay them for. Their work was amazing, and without them (and notably a paralegal Ben, who sat at Sky News and went through terabytes of footage to get the video evidence we needed - things that were crucial to the case), we would have been lost.

They were also fantastic at the police station - knowing that I have aspergers, and my brother is also on the spectrum, they sent out a solicitor to the station who used to be a special needs teacher, and that kind of thoughtfulness is what raises them far above most firms.

As for how we chose them, when you are at a major demonstration, the organisers usually brief a firm about the protest, and effectively have them on standby - this is usually done with an organisation such as Green and Black Cross who have the contacts with the solicitors. Then the protesters are handed 'bust cards' with advice in case of arrest, and a solicitor's details on. You are also advised to write that number on your arm in case you loose the card. Bindmans are one of the trusted firms for protest cases in London, and just happened to be the firm on the card that day.

The civil side, we had Shamik Dutta from Bhatt Murphy, who is an expert in the field, and has given evidence tin Parliament to select committees. He's been excited about the case from day one, has helped us manage the case emotionally as well as legally, and when I say we couldn't have done this without him, I really do mean it.

How we decided on them? Tony from Legal Defense and Monitoring Group advised us to go with them, and we took his advice after looking around and doing some research.

As for the admin... It's slightly crazy, but as a family of confirmed geeks, we handled it fairly well.

The first thing that LDMG taught us is, there is no Perry Mason - we had to investigate and dig up evidence ourselves. And we did so, gathering tonnes of youtube evidence, having extended-family conferences to look over evidence and police statements in detail, even editing the video ourselves (this was mainly our mother, as I felt physically sick whenever I watched it). We still have half a book case, a one terabyte hard drive (over half full with case video and documents), and a filing cabinet draw full of case related documents.

We were able to manage this mass, and get out the evidence we needed, even with the road blocks the police and CPS put up. I'm now not exactly sure what we do with this mountain of paperwork - it'll likely go up to the attic!

Can't recommend Bindmans enough, they do incredible work. And as a Green and Black Cross legal observer, thanks for the plug ;)

I'm also trained as a GBC legal observer, and do court support in Manchester - we had a tonne of court support, and it helped us cope in a huge way. Keep up with the good work!

Initially it looked to me like you were attacking the guy on the horse but after re-watching the video a couple more times I now see better what happened but you really have to watch it carefully. Can you appreciate that to the other police officers it could easily have looked like you were attacking him too?

Definitely, we totally appreciate that the officers around could have looked across and made assumptions - and that those assumptions are reasonable to make in the middle of the chaos.

The problem we get to is that the officer on the horse then, a month later and only when forced to by his superior officer, made a false statement. And the other officers backed him up in their statements, as they all sat round and wrote their statements together.

We have statements from officers that are impossible, and are directly against video footage - so much so that the line the prosecution barrister took in their summing up was to ignore the video footage, police don't lie (paraphrasing, but those words to that effect were said).

We also had horrific treatment at the police station (I could barely stand to be booked in, due to a head injury that they knew about), I was put in a cell and allowed to sleep with a serious concussion, we were denied appropriate adults illegally during the first interview, and so much more.

There was the rude and abusive interview from murder and anti-terror officers months after the event.

Then there was the hiding and manipulation of crucial evidence that would have seriously helped the defense in the first trial.

So, had the officer on the horse written his statement more factually, considering that without that statement, the police would have dropped the case, we would have walked away - with no trial, and chalked it up to experience.

Sadly, if you are found guilty, you cannot bring a claim against the police, meaning that if they all lie, and you are found wrongfully guilty, their misconduct never comes to light.

I was put in a cell and allowed to sleep with a serious concussion

Not that this is justification for anything you went through but Doctors no longer recommend against sleeping after a concussion. Source: I wrecked my mountain bike last year and got a concussion. Was specifically told sleeping was fine.

Interesting.

However, the really important point is that it's Met Police standard procedure to take someone suffering a head injury directly to hospital for a check at A&E, as they don't want another death in custody - the custody Sargent will know this, as will other officers.

It was obvious I was unwell, and was actually passing in and out of consciousness in the police van, with an officer sitting next to me. There is no way under standard procedure that I should have not have been taken directly to hospital before I even reached the police station for booking in.

It's worth noting that the injury was due to an over-arm baton strike, and that the sound it made was audible to my brother (who jokingly tells everyone it sounded like hollow wood - but more seriously like a cricket ball hitting a bat). It's the same injury that caused Alfie Meadows to need emergency brain surgery later that day.

the line the prosecution barrister took in their summing up was to ignore the video footage, police don't lie

Shit like this makes my head spin.

EDIT: baton-to-head pun definitely not intended.

It did to us too - the level of bugled attempted deception was both mindblowing and embarrasing at the same time.

Nice Guy Fawkes mask bro, I am also from anonymouse(we do not forget AMIRIGHT?), i've been on 4chan since 2013 so I'm kind of an oldfag. What's your favourite meme?

On a serious note - How did you come to be behind a Police line, in amongst a bunch of Police horses? Are you incapable of doing as your told, or do you know better?

Well, as I said before, the Guy Fawkes mask was more of a themed joke on the day - nothing serious. We also had one side of the placard referencing the film.

As for the kettle - technically, the kettle wasn't in place at this time, and we weren't behind any police line.

So, here are the events as they happened - I'd like to point out that when we asked for the police radio command logs, they were massively redacted down to two commands for the entire protest. We managed to get this information from the police helicopter footage and other footage. This also goes entirely against the narrative the police laid out after the event.

First of all, there was a stop at the front of the protest, going down whitehall - the police were concerned about a crush situation, and the command came over the radio "as previously discussed, let the students in to Parliament Square". This was from Silver Command, and when questioned what would have happened had we not entered, Bronze command said that they would have made us enter.

We then went in to Parliament square, which was a dead end, with the grassed area cordoned off with six-foot fencing - the students got worried about a crush, and some of them took down the fencing. This was then (regrettably) used as weapons, or as shields from the use of police over-arm baton use - we saw at least one major head wound to what appeared to be a sixteen year old girl.

Then, from the front (we have video to show this) one officer on a loud hailer called out "if you want to leave, leave by the rear - this is not a containment".

At that point, you can see on the helicopter footage the entire crowd changed direction, and headed towards Broad Sanctuary - it's worth noting at this point that the exit was actually whitehall, and that Broad Sanctuary was a full cordon.

The police across Broad Sanctuary then thought they were under a planned attack, fell back a few times (in a similar way to the officers leading us in to Parliament Square), and then the front line disappeared - they had pulled back to let the horses charge in.

It's in this charge that I was attacked and arrested.

That is when the serious disorder from the students kicked in - effectively in defense and retaliation from the charge, and the baton use.

To sum it all up, on the day it was down to a series of communication issues (commands were taking 30min to percolate to bronze officers, never mind anyone else), and police screw-ups - the bronze commander that was questioned was in command of the officer with the loud hailer, and was shocked when we showed him that video.

However, everything after - evidence being hidden and covered up, witnesses changing their statements on the stand from trial to trial to cover up for wrongful uses of batons, police telling direct and provable lies on the stand (5ft 5inch officer standing on the wrong side of the horse saw the entire incident THROUGH THE HORSE), and more, is entirely inexcusable. Quite frankly, the level of police collusion and corruption is startling.

And to put this in to context, I have family and friends who work within the police in several forces around the UK, have done graphics design work for a police org for free, and used to be quite friendly towards officers. Now I'm most certainly uneasy around them, and would have to have a serious think about whether I would want to report a crime to the police - never mind any other interactions.

Well, as I said before, the Guy Fawkes mask was more of a themed joke on the day - nothing serious. We also had one side of the placard referencing the film

I was only kidding as well.

As for the kettle - technically, the kettle wasn't in place at this time, and we weren't behind any police line.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FORnsCu4SI - This video appears to show a Police line in the background, as well as what's supposed to be a line of Police horses backing them up, which you're right in the middle of, with the majority of the protestors managing to find themselves on the other side of that line, but not you.

We were right at the front of the crowd before the line disappeared, and we knew that if horses are walking around, you stand still so as not to spook them and so they go around you. We then wanted to move away from Parliament Square.

Then, the horses pushed the crowd back significantly, and the line re-formed. In reality, we weren't far from where the front of the line was when the horses charged.

We have video evidence that, while sadly we can't share due to media restrictions on the evidence, shows from a media helicopter how little we moved.