Skip to content or view screen version

LATEST NEWS - 3 hour lock on shuts down machine inside Drax

reports | 01.09.2006 16:39 | Climate Camp 2006 | Climate Chaos | Ecology | Technology

This news just in as those responsible have finally been released after about 28 hours in police custody...

Yesterday during the day of mass action against Drax, three people managed to enter Drax despite the presence of police from eight forces and lock on to a slag processing machine which was then switched off for three hours.

The three protesters had met each other for the first time at the Camp for Climate Action and with six others, made their way to Drax down the river from Selby in the early hours. They evaded police with dogs, secrity with dogs, helicopters etc and scalled three fences. They initially locked on to a lighting tower but after about an hour and a half they decided to find something more disruptive.

They found the slag processing plant and climbed to the top over a conveyor belt then locked on. The police shut the machine down and it remained inoperable for about three hours until the three protesters were finally taken away by police.

The three are now back at the camp after a 28 hour detention. Personal accounts to follow...

Indymedia video interview will the uploaded later.

reports

Additions

Audio Interview of the Activists

01.09.2006 19:23


Download: Listen to the Audio Interview here. - mp3 4.3M

Click at the link to hear some of those that participated in this action. They describe the action itself, they talk about how inspiring it was for them to succeed in the lock on even though the vast amount of police and security guards patrolling the Drax perimeter fence. They also explain their arrest, and describe the 28 hours they spent in police cells.

IMC Climate Camp


Comments

Display the following 6 comments

  1. And that matters because..... — p
  2. i think camp was bloody marvellous — local
  3. Bla Bla — More Camp Propaganda
  4. sorry Jean — s
  5. disruption and danger — Sarah Nexter
  6. Any independent verification of this? — Mr G