Remember the fox hunting law so many of you urged MPs to vote for. And which you expect the police to enforce? How can you on one hand expect to have that law enforced and fox hunters to obey while on the other you break another law precisly because you do not agree with it.

OK so you wont be able to protest in Parliament Square from now on without prior police permission - big deal. But you are perfectly entitled to protest anywhere else in London or the whole of the country - so what have you lost? Virtually nothing.

Your stupid action will only encourage people like the Countryside alliance to go on hunting foxes with dogs in defiance of what they see as an unjust law!
 http://hsa.enviroweb.org/hsa.shtml

The problem here, which nobody is talking about is Brian. Protest outside of Parliment has been allowed for years (unlike most nations - try it in Paris and see what happens !) but it was always understood that protest dispersed after a while meaninig that the pavement and the roads were not blocked.

Brian's protest has grown and grown and now the pathway is almost completly blocked by bits of old cardboard, dirty sheets, chairs etc. Because Brian is crap at clearing up food, rats and mice are attracted to the area which poses a health hazard and let's be blunt most of his stuff is unreadable so it's not as though he getiing a message across is her ?

Brian needs to go and find a better way to protest, he had become a freak and his actions has directly led to this ban. I am sorry to say but if anyone is to blame, it's him.

The point is not whether the police have to enforce the law, the point is to protest against a law which further stifles peaceful protest in this supposedly free country. That is why it was important. Right, other so called 'democracies', including Russia, have enforced, or are trying to enforce such a ban, but whose interests does it serve? The answer can only be those of 'elected representatives' whose consciences cannot bear the sight of the people they have deceived.

Paralells with the Countyside Alliance are interesting (whose interests are they serving?)

As to Brian Haw's hygiene, I've visited his spot many times and have yet to see, or hear of, any evidence of such a strange assertion. In any case, you don't say whether you agree with his platform or not? Presumably not, otherwise, you'd be trying to help a man whose views represent the majority of this peaceful nation.

I disagree that Brian Haw is "the cause of the problem". I think the police have tried to evict him many times and if he posed a health hazard then he would have been evicted by now.
I understand that courts have previously found that he keeps the site clean.

The point is there has been genocide going on in Iraq for many years now (first the propping up of Saddam Hussein, then the 1991 war and the illegal destruction of Iraq's civilian infrastructure, then the illegal sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Children, then the current ongoing illegal war that's killed tens of thousands of civilians) and Brian's trying to draw attention to all this. I think Brian's actions are good. The problem is a Government and a political system that spreads death and misery around the World. (It's actually our duty under international law to oppose war crimes and crimes against humanity even if this means breaking local laws; I don't think this stipulation would apply to actions carried out by the CountrySide Alliance).

Strange World we live in: Brian Haw is a "freak", and Winston Churchill, who advocated the gassing of civilian populations in the middle east, is the "Greatest Briton who ever lived".

I can't see why unauthorised peaceful protest should be banned within 1 km of parliament, what possible purpose could this serve except to stifle dissent? There are plenty of laws to deal with violence and other unlawful activity.

Im surprised the Government bothered with this ban on protest, as it only draws attention to the repressiveness of the state... but it's still a bad law and it's right to oppose it.

it's becoming fashionable to belittle human rights in the present new world order, but assuming that they still stand for something, there are the right to freedom of expression and the right to free assembly, but last time i looked, i didn't see the right to scare, torture, maim and kill animals. i think that's the difference here huntsab!

as far as brian haw's personal hygiene. what evidence do you have for your fatuous comments kiora? i had a good look round brian's pasters and banners today and i had no trouble reading them at all - suggest you go back to school.

Can't quite believe these 2 first comments. Why bother even browsing Indymedia as you clearly have no problem with the received information from the police and mainstream media. F-ck off back to Murdochland. You just sit back there and watch your few paltry remaining rights being washed away as you don't give one sh*t for them and stop slating those that bother to take action.

No, I'd say the people who decided to LIE to their citizens, and pursue an illegal path of Naked Aggression, are the ones to blame, I'm afraid.

I was there and am moved by what I saw. I met brian today for the 2nd time and found him to be a sound, decent man who spoke fluently, intelligently and with genuine compassion for his fellow man, be they officers of the law or innocent victims of our bombs.

Not one to normally criticize the Met, I found the police presence intimidating (I counted at least 5 clusters of moody police photographers) and aggressive. One passer by/tourist (provacateur?) seemed to take pleasure in shouting at us that we were "stupid" and that the police were "here to help" whilst we were conveying our disgust at the way that 5 fully grown male officers were dragging a peaceful lady to their van. I overheard one officer say that "we've got 3" when asked how many arrests they had made followed by "we need 6" worried me, like they had a target. When asked for the name of the Police station that the "perpetrators" had been taken to, the police gave 3 different names, one example of their smug disrespect for these good people.

The sheer number and expense of the police operation amazed me: 2 Helicopters, 7 Police Vans, 4 "prison wagons" for arrests and just way too many police officers. Such a waste of resources, yet I am sure that they (and other clones) will say that it's our fault, keeping them from "real" policing like catching terrorists. Funny how they never seem low on manpower for these kind of things. I am sure they will be policing the DSEi (September, Excel) well too.

I hope more of you will come on Sunday to maintain the protest at this draconian law.

Don't fall for the "it's to prevent terrorism" line that my friends fall for, It's to keep us "out of sight, out of mind" and to stop good people like Brian and the Wednesday women from embarassing the corrupt and greedy into remembering what they are really there for.

Shame on you Met Police...See you on Sunday

The problem here is the person posting under the name "Kiora" is lying. It is both a physical and legal fact that Brian's protest does not block the pavement. And there are no rats. Nor is he a terrorist suspect, arms dealer, nor -- as a peace protestor -- has he a predilection for harbouring "items that would cause a serious risk to members of the public and MPs".

It's hard enough getting civilized politics done without people spreading lies and disinformation. Remember Jean Charles de Menezes whom the police lied had leapt the ticket barrier in the tube station before they executed him. Lies are the currency of Government. Never forget that.

Gus is right. Phoney postings on Indymedia like the first two above are sadly as much part of state repression as the new ban on protests around the centre of power and the police action to enforce it.
See you on Sunday.

The attack of September 11, 2001 against the United States, the war against
the Taliban in reaction thereto, and, in particular, the war against Iraq in
2003 have prompted dissonant views concerning the international law regime
on the recourse to military force. Some deplore the military actions
taken by the United States and its allies against the Taliban, and in particular
against Iraq as being in violation of the international law prohibition of the
unilateral use of force. They take the position that such practice is likely to
erode the principle of the prohibition to resort to force in international relations.
Others argue the necessity of having the scope and content of the prohibition
of the use of force to be reconsidered.1 The problem is a complex
one.

 http://www.forum.mpg.de/archiv/20031022/docs/911.pdf

"Why break the law when you expect other to obey it, remember fox hunting?"

I don't know whether the poster of this is genuine or not (and I have doubts). However I disagree with that argument - I would not do fox hunting myself but would still support the right of anyone including fox hunters to demonstrate their views outside Parliament, Downing Street and anywhere within the 1km area.

Can someone explain to me how Brian Haw manages to survive where he is since four years.

1) What is is income ? DSS maybe ?
2) Who protects him while he sleeps at night from say, tramps, drug addicts etc... Police maybe ?
3) Why other people who wanted to use his spot from time to time as well and do a rota have been told by the police they couldn't, that that was Brian Haw's spot because he came first and that sharing his spot with others was only up to him, and this, way before the new laws ?
4) How he seems totally immune from invisible forms of harressment such as the routinely used on activists microwaves weapons ? Got headaches for no reason ? Feel sick and nauseated for hours for no reasons while your ears are whistling with an electronic pitch ? Don't seek further, you are targeted by microwaves. Brain Haw at the place where he is, is most vulnerable to that. He does not seem to suffer from it at all when he could be made sick enough this way so that he would have to quickly leave.
5) And why is he a "Reptilian Aliens from the 4th Dimension" nutter do you think ?

Speaking as someone who personally knows brian ill answer you.He lives from hand to mouth .He does not obtain 1 penny in state benefit and is not any kind of a scrounger he often refuses donations.Much of his time is spent fasting anyway.

Ive protected brian while he s slept at night but for the best part of his campaign he s taken that risk.He has a loyal supporter by the name of Maria.Her and her daughter Kerry who have both contributed massively to his campaign watch over his site while he sleeps.He has been insulted .verbally and physically attacked,nose broken,stiched up by police,intimidated by racist soldiers off duty.He s also received death threats.He is spared no sympathy by drunken and aggressive passers -by even while he grabs a few hours sleep.


Brian does not have exclusive rights to protest on parliament square thats nonsense.He shared the spot with hunting protesters and anyone who now cares to apply will have no less right to his protest area than himself.

Brian Haw is the only man to talk a word of truth to the public within a square mile of parliament.

(as regards your other remarks I ll let someone more qualified to help you answer)