If George Orwell and Laurie Lee were to return from the Spanish civil war today, they would be arrested under section five of the Terrorism Act 2006.
During the "operation", a legal observer was injured by a mounted officer and six people were arrested under section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act.
The woman was arrested under section five of the Terrorism Act on suspicion of preparing to travel overseas to engage in terrorist acts.
The women were arrested under Section 505 of the Indian Penal Code for "statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill will between classes".
The spokesman said: "Five men arrested under section 41 of the Terrorism Act have today, Wednesday May 4 2011, been released without charge.
All five suspects, who were being held at central London police stations, were arrested under section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000 which relates to those suspected of being involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.
Last April two Austrian tourists were forced to delete their shots after being stopped by police in Walthamstow; and Alex Turner, an amateur photographer, was arrested under section 44 after taking images of a fish and chip shop in Kent.
On May 14 I was arrested under section 41 of the Terrorism Act - on suspicion of the "instigation, preparation and commission of acts of terrorism": an absurdly nebulous formulation that told me nothing about the sin I had apparently committed.
The students protest didn't even leave the pavement for goodness sake!" The Metropolitan Police confirmed that "a 24-year-old man was arrested under Section 11 of the Public Order Act" today.
But would it be any more absurd than a student being arrested under section 5 for saying to a mounted policeman: "Excuse me, do you realise your horse is gay?", or the 19-year-old Kyle Little, charged and convicted – though then cleared on appeal – for delivering what was described as a "daft little growl" and a woof at two labradors?
