This has just been sent to all members of staff. Its by Paul Wellings, the top manager or 'vice Chancellor' of the Uni.

Wellings is at the forefront of the corporate takeover of scientific research. As Prof Nicholls, a biologist wrote of this man: "he has never held a university position nor probably had anything to do with students. It is symptomatic of the commercialisation of our universities that he takes the attitude he does - that his own students can be trespassers in their own university".

---
So here it is: Message from the Boss Man:
---

Staff will be aware that a court case, brought by the CPS against a
group of six students and members of the local community who protested
at a conference at Lancaster University last year, was held at Lancaster
Magistrate's Court this week.

The protestors were today found guilty of aggravated trespass and given
a two year conditional discharge.

There has been a lot of publicity generated by the supporters, some of
it inaccurate, but the University could say little at the time as it
would have been prejudicial to the case. Now I would like to explain the
reasons why the Crown Prosecution Service took the decision to go to
court.

After the disruption, the protesters posted a description of their
actions on the internet and also put up a video of their activities
which appeared to indicate that criminal activity had taken place.

As Vice-Chancellor I am required to maintain the good order of the
University. When presented with allegations of criminal activity or
other serious incidents I discuss the matter with the University
Secretary and the Head of Security and other members of the staff on a
need to know basis. This ensures that allegations are not canvassed
widely, the privacy of any victim is preserved and the rights of the
accused to a fair hearing are maintained.

If there is any evidence, this is passed to the police. These procedures
have been in place for a long period and other institutions will have a
similar approach.

I felt that the actions of the protestors went beyond what would
normally be accepted as peaceful protest on campus and referred the
matter to the police. Historically we have a strong commitment to
peaceful protest and we continue to permit such protests including
others by these protestors themselves in Alexandra Square.

The Crown Prosecution Service decided that there was a case to answer,
and from then on it was out of the University's hands. The CPS brought
the case to court.

The University has an obligation to maintain freedom of speech and we
have well publicised policies in place setting out how this is achieved.
The University also has an obligation to the majority of staff, students
and visitors who wish to get on with their legitimate business and
academic research without disruption.

I intend to raise this issue at next week's Senate meeting.

Paul Wellings
Vice-Chancellor
Lancaster University
30 September 2005

-----
What utter and contemptable bollox!

I hope someone at the sanate meeting tells him that the reality is that our time-honoured traditions of legitimate protest at this University go well beyond the right to the odd rally in a square - Lancaster and other Uni's have a rich history of student occupations, sit-ins and teach-in's. These are not acts of tresspass, but legitimate parts of student politics.

So get your corporate lilly livered arse the fuck out of our freedoms, Mr Boss Man!

The Six have decided to appeal, which means that this case now becomes everybody's case - as if it weren't already! With an appeal the case moves up the hierarchical ladder of the law and if cases have been decided at a high level of the legal system it sets a precedent. That means that if the GF6 are found guilty at a highler level, then Magistrate's Courts can refer to the GF6 verdict and thereby a whole new situation arises. In the worst case scenario, and history has taugh us to not exclude such options!, universities, who are becoming more and more defined by corporate financial de-facto power, can simply call the police if there is a protest, get dissenting students removed and sentenced for aggravated trespass. That is up to 3 months in prison for handing out leaflets when human rights abusers come to campus.

There is a Wiki that has appeared -  http://gfsixverdict.pbwiki.com - to analyse the GF6 verdict and help build both a stronger case for the appeal, but also to consider the implications of the case and the arguments as such. To contribute to the WIKI use "freedomofspeech" as a means of access :)

There will also be a reflective session -  http://knowledgelab.pbwiki.com/index.php?wiki=AntiCapitalism - on the lessons from the case so far, facilitated by one of the GF6, in the Institute for Advanced Studies at Lancaster University on November 5.

The text of the front page of the WIKI is pasted below:
Analysis of the George Fox 6 verdict

Six students found guilty of aggravated tresspass in Lancaster Magistrate's Court, September 30, 2005. Prosecuted by their own University for handing out leaflets at a conference that many consider highly controversial.

See BackgroundInformation to get clued up.

The arguments on which the sentence was based were:

* Oxford English Dictionary's distinctions between DisruptionandInterruption (seriously!).

* The students could not be unaware that they were NotWelcome to protest on campus in this manner.

* It was not the students FreedomofSpeech that were denied, but that of the corporations attending (this point is very interesting and the judge made it clear that in a free and democratic society you should not just be allowed to make cluster bombs, missiles, jet fighter planes and lethal chemicals, but also be allowed to meet with your academic friends and elaborate the Corporate Academic Warfare Project in peace - WITHOUT being confronted with stories about the consequences of your human rights abuses around the world on a daily basis. Thus the idea freedom of speech has been deployed to protect Capitaqlists who abuse a whole range of human rights.

* What more is there??

Obviously we are disappointed with the verdict we received today, and the disappointment will also be felt by the hundreds of people who have supported us throughout this prosecution.

We remain proud of what we did and we still believe that the moral victory is ours.

The university, and the charges that it supported, have been condemned by many of its own academics, and by academics around the world, as well as local councillors, Quakers, human rights groups such as Liberty, the National Union Students, the Council for Academic for Freedom and Standards, the Association of University Teachers, Scientists for Global Responsibility, Lancashire Trades Union Congress, Lancaster Student Union and other student unions and members of the public around the country.

As far as we and they are concerned, it has been the university's ethics that
have been on trial, and they have been found guilty. We will be appealing the
courts decision.

The Judge dismissed charges of intimidation presented by the prosecution,
saying there was no evidence to suggest that we had acted in an any way
likely to cause fear. He found that we simply disrupted the meeting
momentarily. We still dispute the accusation of disruption, since we only
wanted to make our views heard for a few minutes and did not intend to stop
the conference from happening.

We also wish to challenge the law which was used against us. We believe
that if we can be found guilty for what we did then the very right of protest itself is thrown into doubt. All protest causes some inconvenience, but this is why we are rightly proud of our right to freedom of speech, which includes a right to be heard. We feel that this prosecution is part of a worrying trend towards an erosion of civil liberties.

The judge accepted that article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights was at issue in this case, but mistakenly agreed with the spurious prosecution argument that the right to freedom of expression was denied not to the defendants but to the delegates at the conference. The defendants were told that they "denied others the right to conduct their meeting".

Article 10 states:

10.1 "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

10.2 The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."


The key part here is the phrase "freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference BY PUBLIC AUTHORITY". Throughout the Convention, the human rights at issue are those of the individual against actions of the state or its representatives. It was a response to world war two's graphic demonstration of what can happen if the power of the state over the individual is left unchecked.

I as a private individual cannot violate your article 10 right to free expression. The convention is all about the responsible exercise of "public authority" by the state and its representatives. Even if I as an individual wanted to deny Lord Sainsbury his right to freedom of expression I could not, legally, ever do so.

The university on the other hand, as a publicly funded body (though who knows for how much longer) has an obligation to act in accordance with the convention.

'The university, and the charges that it supported, have been condemned by many of its own academics, and by academics around the world, as well as local councillors, Quakers, human rights groups such as Liberty, the National Union Students, the Council for Academic for Freedom and Standards, the Association of University Teachers, Scientists for Global Responsibility, Lancashire Trades Union Congress, Lancaster Student Union and other student unions and members of the public around the country. '


So you've got support from unworldly, naive teachers and the dinosaurs at the TUC. Big deal. It's about time the Lancaster 6 realised why the country's taxpayers, both private citizens and businesses, fund universities, and it isn't so that silly students can play at politics.

Why have we not heard a peep out of Lancaster University Students Union about this case, and the implications for freedom of speech on campus?

LUSU have been very supportive to the group - being one of the first to start helping fight the charges. The LUSU president from last year was a witness for the defence.

just a small shot, 4.8Mb, in front of the court - banners and people!