Well the police now appear to have full control over our right to protest at EDO. Two of us met for the weekly noise protest as usual and were immediately issued with a Section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986. Bizarrely we were moved on from where we stopped but where we stopped coincidentally happened to be where the notice said we should be. So I guess we could have been arrested for breaching the notice at any time. Doh! We were later joined by two others who I'm sure could have given somebody a nasty Chinese Burn if they were provoked!

It is clear that the tactics have changed and the police are trying to stamp their authority and criminalise peaceful and law abiding citizens. The two of us had no intention of "Causing serious public disorder" or "Serious damage to property" or "Serious disruption to the life of the community", etc.

However the real criminals opposite us drove home in their nice little cars - subsidised by the tax payer and dripping in blood - completely unbothered by the police.

Treating us as extremists in this way is a policy that ultimately will rebound on those who would attempt to suppress the right to protest against people who cause so much misery around the world.

Yesterday Smash Edo, Bombs out of Brighton and 14 individuals found themselves issued with intended injunctions against them in the High court, London.

This is the first time that groups outside of the Animal rights movement have found themselves issued with intended injunctions at the High court.

Lawson-Cruttenden & Co of 10-11 Gray’s Inn Square, London. WC1R5JD.
Tel: 020 74050833. Fax:020-74050866
E-mail:  info@lawson-cruttenden.co.uk are dealing with the legal side of this case, they are the same group that got injunctions against animal rights related groups.

The date in the high court is for 14th April at 10.30am and it would seem that the trial is listed for 10 hours.

They are citing protection from Harassment act 1997.

The details of the intended injunction are- not photographing people working for Edo or their vehicles.

Using and musical instruments, loudhailers or anything that amplifies sound.

Making any abusive comments, orally, by telephone, in writing or by e-mail to people working within the company.

Entering into premises belonging to the company or persons associated with the company.

Going within 100 yards of the houses of the employees (160 employees hmm..)

Protests being limited to a specific designated area and the number of protestors not to exceed 10 individuals

That the demonstrations will only occur on Thursdays between 15.30-18.00

The protestors shall not park or drive their car within half a mile of EDO. (Edo is within half a mile radius of both universities and Brighton city centre, as the crow flies)

That no protest shall occur on or near the high way and path and field that faces the entrance to home farm road.

That the names protestors and groups can only enter the “exclusion zone” for the purpose of getting to the designated area (a small grass verge near to Edo)

Publishing by website, e-mail etc, names, addresses, tel no’s etc of the company employees.

Inciting or compelling the company or protected persons against his will from doing something, which he (or she?) is entitled or required to do.

Inciting or compelling the company or protected persons against his will to do something, which he is not under any obligation to do.

Creating protest camps within a radius of 3 miles of Edo or any of the (160) employees.

'This is the first time that groups outside of the Animal rights movement have found themselves issued with intended injunctions at the High court.'


This also happened to the Anti-Bayer campaign.

According to an analyst on yahoo EDO corp message boards the campaign against EDO in Brighton is affecting their global share price. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mb?s=EDO

.03.2005 11:54


We know about the Bayer injunction of course. However it was a) directed against a campaign which had already won i.e Bayer were just about to pull out of GM in the UK b) SHAC were also named on that injunction, meaning that in the authorities' minds at least the Stop Bayer campaign was associated with animal rights activists.

Hence we've chosen to call this the first injunction under the Protection from Harrassment Act 1997 , which has been directed at an active non-animal rights campaign.
Hopefully we'll be able to call into question the mechanism of the injunctions themselves.
Unlike animal rights activists we haven't been demonised by the press for years, this could be our crucial advantage.
Andrew Beckett
e-mail:  smashedopress@yahoo.co.uk



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SMASH EDO

PRESS RELEASE

28th March 2005

EMBARGO: For Immediate Release

ARMS DEALERS DROP LEGAL BOMBSHELL ON PROTESTERS

A number of Brighton anti-war activists from the Smash Edo campaign were presented with a summons to attend the High Court on 14th April.

EDO/MBM Ltd, who manufacture bomb components for F-16s used in the Iraq war, are seeking an injunction to prevent campaigners from protesting outside their factory in Brighton. The injunction is sought by solicitors firm Lawson-Cruttenden & Co.

The summons follows the recent acquittal of three activists accused of aggravated trespass on EDO’s premises.

EDO also recently withdrew a threatened libel action against Indymedia over being named as “warmongers”.

It is believed that the injunction served under the 1997 Protection from Harassment Act (originally designed to protect women from stalkers) is the first of its kind directed at activists outside of the animal rights movement.

If granted it would create an “exclusion zone” outside of EDO’s premises on Home Farm Industrial Estate as well as banning any protests outside homes of directors and employees of the company (over 160 addresses)! The company will allow protests to take place on Thursday afternoons for two hours provided those protesting number no more than ten and are silent.

The blanket nature of the injunction sought could affect hundreds of people involved in the Peace Movement in Brighton and would in effect be a control order, placed against “persons unknown”.

Tom Gittoes named on the summons said “I will fight this injunction. It’s sickening that in a UN Peace Messenger City, the local police and an arms company are colluding to prevent peaceful protest. This is typical of EDO’s contempt for human rights. They’ve used every trick in the book including covert photography and serving the summons on a Bank Holiday weekend when we can’t get legal advice.”

Lorna Marcham (also named) added “It is clear that this injunction is an attempt to strangle our right to protest, EDO don’t want attention drawn to their role in the death of civilians in the illegal war in Iraq”

Contacts

Press Inquiries: Andrew 0787 5708873

www.smashedo.bpec.org

Notes for Journalists

Lawson-Cruttenden & Co, a solicitors firm have been instrumental in the development of the Protection of Harassment Act 1997 from a measure designed to safeguard individuals to a corporate charter to make inconvenient protest illegal. They have pioneered to use of injunctions to create large “exclusion zones”. They have secured numerous injunctions against anti-vivisection protestors.

EDO/MBM Technologies Ltd are a UK subsidiary of huge U.S arms conglomerate EDO Corp, which was recently named No. 10 in the Forbes list of 100 fastest growing companies.

Perhaps if you had stuck to peaceful protest instead of criminal damage you wouldn't now be facing this action. All you have done is make it easy for them.

A little more thought next time

There has been NO violence in the campaign that i am aware of (from our side). Property destruction is not violence, something on which Gandhi and the British legal system agree.

In any event, the injunction is specifically seeking to prevent LAWFUL, PEACEFUL protest. This is the very definition of collective punishment, and is a result not of specific tactics of individuals (wrongheaded or not) but of the persistence of the campaign.

Blaming our more militant comrades for repression is like blaming the suffragettes (bricks through windows) for the disenfranchisement of women. The responsibility lies clearly with EDO, and if the injunction is granted, the state. Don't blame the victim.

Maybe the High Court should take out injunctions preventing children from using play areas in parks because a tiny minority of them are engaged in acts of vandalism.

Using an injunction to crush lawful protest on the basis that there are maybe a handful of nutters bricking EDO's windows every so often follows the same logic.

I see so that's the way protest debate works is it? You make a cock-up in your tactics and when this is pointed out to you the cry is "Troll". Perhaps a little less of the "we know best" and a little more of trying to learn from others would pay dividends in the future.

The days of waving banners and standing on roofs shouting slogans are over, the police and companies can deal with those. There are other more creative tactics being used (which for obvious reasons I won't run through on this public forum) which have been effective. Seek advice, attend meetings with other groups but name calling because you screwed up is not the way forward.

Stop calling everyone trolls! Michael is troll, sceptic is a troll but not everyone that disagrees with you or doesn't see your point of view is a troll.

Save it for te sicko Zionists that need telling.

Please?

This is not screwed up. This is proof that the campaign against Edo is having an effect.

They are stooping to authoritarian measures to stop a few people making some noise.

EDO have BANNED all music within half a mile of their factory.

That is not a measure that will affect vandals, indeed it may even incite them.