UK Promoted Newswire Archive
Frack Off! 500 ft high Banner Drop Off Blackpool Tower
06-08-2011 10:43
Solidarity demo at the deadly Colnbrook immigration prison
05-08-2011 17:45
"Big Four" Accounting Firm Deloitte's Offices Occupied, Protesters allege Deloitte and HMRC Chiefs of 'Corrupt' Relationship
03-08-2011 23:55
Wednesday 3rd August 2011
by John McArdle
POLICE were called to remove around over 20 people from the Glasgow offices of one of the U.K.'s "Big Four" accounting firms, Deloitte, at 1 p.m. Tuesday at the company's offices on the 9th floor of a building in the city's central George Square.
Fantastic week of blocking Shell
03-08-2011 12:00
Press Release – Campaign to Close Campsfield - Suicide in Campsfield House
03-08-2011 11:29
A man has been reported dead at Campsfield House. He was found hanging in the toilets, according to a Guardian article today. We will mark this event by a vigil in Carfax, Oxford with flowers and placards, today, Wednesday 3rd August, at 6pm.Palestine Today 08 02 2011
02-08-2011 17:00
Jonnie Marbles Sent to Jail: Stop the Punitive Sentencing of Protesters Now
02-08-2011 16:59
Jonnie Marbles (aka Jonnie May-Bowles), 26, who attempted to throw a foam pie at Rupert Murdoch at the House of Commons culture committee on July 19th, had pleaded guilty to common assault and was today sentenced to six weeks imprisonment of which he will serve three, and ordered to pay a fine of £250 plus £15 ‘victim surcharge’. Murdoch had not wanted to press charges, but the court proceeded anyway.
SIGN THE PETITION TO FREE JONNIE NOW.
District Judge Daphne Wickham, who sentenced Jonnie, is the same person who let Sgt Delroy Smellie off the hook for assaulting Nicola Fisher at the G20 protest in 2009, despite YouTube footage of the officer striking at Fisher with his hand and a baton.
Nottingham Critical Mass is on the move
02-08-2011 12:55
Nottingham’s Critical Mass bike ride was restarted on Friday by a group of around 40 cyclists. With a sound system, flags and a sea of fluorescent vests the group reclaimed the city centre’s streets for a celebration of cycling. Critical Mass was a semi-regular fixture in the city between 2005-2009 but has been dormant in recent years. People now meet at 5.30 outside the Victoria Centre clocktower on the last Friday of the month. The next ride will take place on Fri 26th August.
On the newswire: Critical Mass returned to Nottingham (at last!) | Nottingham Critical Mass is back!
Previous features: Nottingham is not stupid | All bikes are go!
As the new Nottingham CM blog says:
‘a route is not planned but will most likely end somewhere sociable, Bring flags, trailers, music and fun. come for a relaxed ride with friends and strangers’
There has been a very l o n g break in the Nottingham CM meeting. Here’s hoping this is the beginning of more great events.
The object is to celebrate cycling and to assert cyclists’ right to the road. With no set routes and no leaders, it’s simply a bunch of people enjoying clean healthy transport.
In addition to all of the worthwhile issues that Critical Mass highlights, it’s a great way to meet people and perhaps do a bit of networking to promote other campaigns.
Critical Mass should appeal to anyone that rides a bike so it should start from the most central location for everyone’s benefit. Plus, practically every other Critical Mass around the globe starts from central, well-known locations which makes it easy to remember and easy to find.
It’s never more than a couple of hours. Bring bright clothing, lights, horns, bells, NOISE and FRIENDS.
From critical-mass.info:
‘Critical Mass is a monthly bicycle ride to celebrate cycling and to assert cyclists’ right to the road. The idea started in San Francisco in September 1992 and quickly spread to cities all over the world.
Critical Mass has a different flavor from city to city — there’s a big variety in size, respect of traffic laws (or lack thereof), interaction with motorists, and intervention by police. So if you want to know more about Critical Mass, you’ll really need to find out what your local ride is like. .
Critical Mass has no leaders, and no central organization licenses rides. In every city that has a CM ride, some locals simply picked a date, time, and location for the ride and publicized it, and thus the ride was born.
CM is an idea and an event, not an organization. You can’t write to “Critical Mass” — certainly not by writing to me.
parliament banner - SOCPA section 128 convictions
01-08-2011 23:55
last thursday, two people were found guilty at westminster magistrates court under section 128 of the serious organised crime and police act (socpa), which creates a criminal offence of trespass on certain 'designated' sites. the convictions were related to a banner drop from scaffolding at the front of parliament during the only debate there has ever been about the war in afghanistan.
click on image for larger version. 'some rights reserved' - free for credited non-commercial use, otherwise contact author for permission
------------
last november, maria and seamus managed to confound security, and despite injuring themselves on the very sharp spikes at the top of the fences, they entered the grounds of parliament, ran across to the scaffolding at the front of the house, climbed up and unfurled various banners. after negotiation with the police and security, they managed to remain there for a full 26 hours.
the event was covered at the time on london indymedia, in a series of posts which included first-hand photos and reports from the protestors themselves sent while they were still occupying the front of parliament.
http://london.indymedia.org/articles/5461
http://london.indymedia.org/articles/5517
http://london.indymedia.org/articles/5522
http://london.indymedia.org/articles/5525
http://london.indymedia.org/articles/5528
http://london.indymedia.org/articles/5530
the court case took place in the tiny court 8 at the top of the building, with only one witness from the police as well as the two accused. it was heard by district judge elizabeth roscoe.
during the morning, we heard from detective constable matthews (from counter terrorism command at scotland yard) about the interviews he had with the two protestors after their arrest.
the interviews took place at charing cross police station, and perhaps unwisely given her tired and injured state, maria had elected to talk freely without a lawyer. dc matthews was asked about this, but he assured the court that in all his years in counter-terrorism, interviewing suspected terrorists perhaps thousands of times, he of course would never have any hesitation in stopping an interview if he thought for one minute that the suspect might be over-tired. so maria, with wounded feet, no medical assistance, and no sleep for more than 26 hours, was questioned, without a lawyer present, about her family, her background, her previous employment and means, as well as about the protest itself.
when maria took the stand, she described how with recent opinion polls showing 83% public support for the withdrawal of troops, she had hoped to influence politicians and policy-makers attending first a committee meeting, and then the first ever debate in the house on the war in afghanistan.
the court heard how her dealings with the authorities had been polite, and that despite an obvious opportunity to disrupt the course of parliament, that had not been her aim. asked why she felt the need to protest within the grounds of the palace of westminster, she explained that although it was clearly not an easy place to get to, it was effectively just another building, but that as it was the only debate on the war it was clearly the most important place to reflect public opinion, as it seemed that the majority of the 650 MPs were unlikely to do so.
maria pointed out that the democratic process she was accused of disrupting, was far from democratic, with only a handful of politicians even turning up to sit through the debate, and hundreds voting at the end according to party whips' commands, rather than conscience or public opinion.
the prosecution made much of the fact that maria was a 'full-time' protestor, and that her peace strike 'boxes' and banners opposite the gates of parliament might have already influenced any politicians they were going to. the suggestion was an attempt to undermine the notion that she 'needed' to do this further protest.
the content of one of the banners was also brought up, a large 'squatter's rights' banner, suggesting that the protest had 'occupied' the scaffolding and could not be removed without civil proceedings. the prosecuter tried to suggest that the protestors weren't serious about the war motive , and were taking the opportunity to campaign for squatting rights too!
seamus then took the stand. his original interview (with a lawyer) was a 'no comment' interview, because he'd realised he was so tired. in court, he spoke of his childhood in belfast, and his knowledge of what a military occupation was like. he felt for the afghan people who face raided homes, and murdered innocents every day of their lives. he spoke of how the british presence in afghanistan had led to more civilian deaths. when maria told him about the debate he saw it as a real and exceptional opportunity to influence the politicians, policy makers, and lobbyists, and how even if he could shorten the war by just one day it would save real people's lives.
seamus' defence advocate explored whether he had made any attempt to hold a more 'legitimate' protest, and we heard how seamus had contacted the socpa events team at charing cross, asking for permission to hold his protest within the grounds of westminster palace, but had been told he'd have to go into tower gardens, a small park out of sight from and to the west of parliament, where very few people pass through. he was also denied access to parliament square, "not possible" because it was fenced off by the GLA.
asked about the squatter's rights banners, he explained it wasn't a publicity stunt or a protest about squatting, but that because the scaffolding was a free-standing structure, the section 6 declaration might just buy some extra time for the protest. otherwise there was the distinct possibility that the protest would be removed by a police rope team in a couple of hours.
he spoke about how it was not impossible that the protest might have an effect, and that because a million people marching had not prevented the iraq war from beginning, that this more direct form of protest was necessary and potentially more effective.
the prosecution made much of his previous 'direct actions', including a much shorter banner drop back in may, but seamus pointed out this was different because it was a proper 'occupation', and had been much more dangerous to accomplish as they had rucksacks etc.
the defence simply asked whether there had been a debate on afghanistan going on back in may. of course there hadn't.
in summing up, the prosecution referred to their skeleton argument, already before the magistrate. she also made an extremely distasteful comment that if a strongly-held political belief was the basis of the defence, then that could apply to the 7/7 bombers too. apart from this jibe, she mainly appeared to argue that although the law allows a defence of 'necessity', it couldn't apply in this case, because both maria and seamus were 'full-time protestors' with a 'cause for the day', proven by the fact that the squat banner had nothing to do with afghanistan, and that it couldn't have been a last resort action as seamus had done something similar before. she also argued that the action might not have been 'necessary', because neither protestor could be sure that their previous protests hadn't already influenced the politicians. i found that an odd argument.
maria's defence (barrister ben silverstone from doughty chambers, appointed by bindmans) argued that the test of necessity was that the action was taken in circumstances that a sober person of reasonable purpose would take in the belief that it was necessary.
given that the debate was the first on afghanistan, and that it was taking place within parliament, it was reasonable and necessary to try to take a high profile action at this exceptional event and in this particular place at this exact time. with that purpose in mind, the action was conducted in a manner that was wholly proportionate and reasonable. the squat banner was only taken in the (perhaps misguided) belief that it might be an aid to the aims of the protest to occupy the space for an extended period.
seamus was represented by hodge, jones and allen partner, raj chada. he argued that 'necessity' meant the defendant's reasonable perception and good cause to fear that death or serious injury would result if he didn't take this action. as this was the first vote on the war, seamus reasonably believed it was crucial, and he felt 'impelled' to do this as the vote could have been pivotal to saving lives. his attempts at organising an 'authorised' protest had been denied, refusing him permission to get his views across effectively, with the offer of an out of site venue around the corner.
at this point judge roscoe seemed confused, and then after appearing to clear up the matter, a few minutes later asked some more questions. she'd been under the illusion that seamus had approached the police events dept before his previous banner drop in may, rather than the one in november, the subject of this case. although after some painful reptition, she eventually got this point, it was rather disconcerting that she hadn't grasped these simple facts about the case as they unfolded earlier in the day. it certainly made me wonder if she'd been listening at all, and undermined any confidence i might have had in her ability to reach a fair verdict.
when eventually she'd grasped the timeline, raj continued with his summing up. with the test of necessity met, the issue of the squat banner was a sideshow drummed up by the prosecution as it was clearly there simply to aid the main protest, and the timings and position of the protest was clear, proportionate and reasonable.
after nearly an hour of deliberation judge roscoe told the court that in her mind the protestors were not 'impelled' to take this action and, while they may have reasonably believed their actions were necessary to influence the course of a war in which people are killed, that all sorts of other protests were available to them which were not illegal.
she said that maria was a full-time protestor who believes only in peaceful protest, but that 'impelled' means no other course of action was available, and she didn't believe that was the case. she asked whether a reasonable person of similar 'characteristic' would have done the same thing, but then said that 'characteristic' was not the same thing as beliefs, and so the answer was no. i'm not sure i understood the distinction in this argument.
she accepted that although seamus' previous escapade didn't necessarily mean he couldn't have been 'impelled' to do it this time, she didn't accept that was the case.
both defendants were found guilty, but as both were very peaceful, co-operative, and proportionate, she saw the misdemeanour as an 'overstepping of the mark' rather than a serious offence, (which socpa section 128 can be), and so she would give the minimum sentence she could. she also said she certainly didn't want to discourage lawful protest. she then proceeded to pass a nine month conditional discharge to both defendants. no costs were awarded.
i'd have thought an absolute discharge would actually have been the minimum sentence but what do i know!
suddenly, the prosecution lawyer asked to address the court one more time, on behalf of detective constable matthews. quite how this fits into court protocol no-one knew, and given that a little earlier the judge had refused to hear a comment from one of the spectators in the court who had raised their hand to speak, it was a little surprising we had to hear this post-trial comment. but the lawyer then read out what amounted to a thinly-veiled death threat from the officer, who asked anyone considering similar action to bear in mind that parliamentary security were armed officers, and that someone might get shot next time.
both defence lawyers commented outside that this was an unusual and surprising addition to the legal process.
so there we have british justice. a prosecution lawyer making out that the protestors weren't serious and just went up parliament with a medley of banners including squatter's rights, also trying to compare them to extreme terrorist bombers. a judge who had difficulty grasping the factual timeline of the evidence. and a police witness who hung around after giving evidence and got the prosecution to utter threats at the end of the trial.
still, seamus enjoyed a walk round to parliament square, having been banned from there for the last nine months by draconian bail conditions for what the judge concluded was 'an overstepping of the mark'.
the defendants are considering whether to appeal.
Palestine Today 08 01 2011
01-08-2011 17:15
Don't Quarry, Be Happy!
01-08-2011 16:55
Peace News Campers, including some from the Nottingham area, visited Huntington Lane anti-UK Coal protest site in Shropshire at the weekend. The site urgently needs solidarity as it is threatened with imminent eviction.
UK Coal is up to no good in Nottinghamshire and Leicestershire. Last year it got permission to mine under Sherwood Forest and was also involved in the recently rejected incinerator proposal - it owned the land. In Leicestershire, UK Coal has recently won a three year battle to get planning permission for an opencast coal mine on the Minorca site near Measham.
Report from the visit:
I recently visited Huntington Lane anti-UK Coal protest site (http://defendhuntingtonlane.wordpress.com/) together with eight others while we were at Peace News Summer Camp. I was told that they had been served with an eviction order and could expect bailiffs and police at any time. They had built various towers out of the branches of trees that had been felled by UK Coal prior to them establishing the site. On one of the towers a banner had been put up reading 'Don't Quarry Be Happy'.
A statement from their website reads:
We would encourage any concerned individuals to pay a visit to camp whether it be to stay on, help out with defences, leave a donation or lend their moral support. Food and supplies to take underground would be very useful.
Peace News Camp: visit to Huntington Lane Protest Site
01-08-2011 16:51
Huntington Lane Protest Site Facing Eviction - An Invitation
31-07-2011 15:56
by Boat, by Air..by Bike: UK activists pedal to Palestine (with Photo Essay)
30-07-2011 19:07
Political Policing during Royal Wedding in Edinburgh
30-07-2011 14:55
Lothian and Borders police are today conducting a systematic programme of harassment aimed at people who have been politically active in Edinburgh.
This Week in Palestine week 30 2011
29-07-2011 16:22
Mayo - Shell’s construction stopped for fifth consecutive day
28-07-2011 19:23
-- Campaigners blockading heavy vehicles prevent construction of Shell’s onshore pipeline -- Press release from earlier today - more details from today plus photos to follow as soon as the folk involved catch their breath!Calais: migrant camp cleared in pest control operation
28-07-2011 17:37
Palestine Today 07 28 2011
28-07-2011 15:37