Hawk Security is a private limited company based in Barton, Oxford. It specialises in 'investigation and security activities'. Like any company, Hawk have to submit information and accounts to the UK government's Companies House, who state they are 'the foundation of company information exchange in the UK: helping business, informing the public and benefiting the economy. '

According to company records (found on BvDEP's FAME database which mirrors Companies House information), this company failed to submit any accounts to Companies House in 2007. Further, the company is listed as 'dormant' on both FAME and on the Companies House website.

So what is a 'dormant' company? According to the government's Business Link, it's '[a] company or limited liability partnership (LLP) is dormant if it has had no "significant" accounting transactions during a financial year.' Seeing as Hawk were quite active in the securitisation of the social club in both 2007 and 2008, this is concerning. So, were Hawk really a 'dormant' company during 2007? Whatever, the full definition on what a 'dormant company' can and cannot do, and penalties for late returns etc., can be seen here:  http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/about/gbhtml/gba10.shtml

Now, I certainly do not wish to allege that Hawk are undertaking any fraudulent activity; the company filed a return on the 10th Jan 2008. But if anyone fancied asking the directors for: further information about Hawk's running; its employees' activities; whether the company is registered with the Security Industry Authority (SIA) who are responsible for 'the licensing of the private security industry' etc., then they are: Mr Augustus Mitchell (Executive Director) and Mr Marivic G Flores (Director Secretary and Company Secretary). Both men own the company, and are the shareholders, in a 50-50 split.

HAWK SECURITY UK LIMITED (registered company number:05328241)
24 Hubble Close
OXFORD
OX3 9BS

Its other trading address is:
6 Gaisford Road
Oxford
OX4 3LQ

REFERENCES AND FURTHER INFO:
* FAME database on  http://www.bvdep.com/en/companyInformationHome.html (if you have an Athens account, you can access information for free - or there's a free trial on bvdep.com).

* Companies House - Check out a company through:  http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/

* Business Link -  http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?type=RESOURCES&itemId=1073791918

* SIA  http://www.the-sia.org.uk/home

* 192.com:  http://www.192.com/local/OXFORD/SECURITY/HAWK_SECURITY_UK_LTD/X6B7F605EB01A4900B10F202C71DC7381

When I passed East Oxford Community Centre on the day of the carnival, as the carnival was closing I saw a mob of people dressed in khaki green trying to intimidate the security staff. There was a scuffle and some people seemed to be excluded.
What ever reason these people had tfor their behaviour it was completely unacceptable. The security staff did the right thing to exclude these people at that time.
This was carnival time not a time to try and make a point in such an agressive manner. I did not go to the after party at the centre as I did not want to be in the mddle of this mob. No one has the right to behave like they did.
The security staff should be commended for their calm, response to the behaviour of the mob.
The police I believe arrested 2 people who were there in the middle of the mayhem from what I saw they would not calm down.
The carnival last year run under the old Social Club was ok except 2 men tried to bottle each other. At least one of the security staff were the same ones that stopped that incident having muderous conciquences.
The mob I am told rent a room in the community centre, they really should have more respect for other people in the building and events going on.
I would urge the mangement organisation of the community centre to deal with this group.

...and then there are outright lies.

First of all, for anyone who isn't sure which version to believe, watching the video is a good place to start:
 http://blip.tv/file/get/Undercurrents-CanYouPhotographABouncerWhoIsBeingAggressive250.avi
unfortunately, because the bouncers kept bashing and twisting the camera, we didn't manage to record everything, but it gives you an idea of how things were.

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

> When I passed East Oxford Community Centre on the day of the carnival, as the carnival
> was closing I saw a mob of people dressed in khaki green trying to intimidate the security staff.

We weren't wearing 'khaki green'. That's bollocks. We were a group of about 5 people, and had maybe one or two green (not khaki patterned) items of clothes between all of us. We were having an (admittedly heated) argument with the staff because they had arbitrarily decided not to let us into the building.

In what sense would you say our behaviour was intimidating?

> There was a scuffle and some people seemed to be excluded.

There was some pushing after I tried to get into the building. I did this by trying to run through a gap, not by attacking anyone. There was also a struggle to try to stop the door staff breaking someone's camera. Both of these happened after we had been denied access to the building. Your choice of wording makes it sounds as if the 'scuffle' was the reason for us being denied access, which was not the case at all.

> What ever reason these people had tfor their behaviour it was completely unacceptable.
> The security staff did the right thing to exclude these people at that time.

What were we doing that was so unacceptable? Trying to stop an aggressive bouncer breaking someone's camera by trying to remove his hand? Trying to squeeze past into a building we not only have every right to go into but have actually been involved in constructively for many years? Arguing with them rather than accept their right to exclude us?

> This was carnival time not a time to try and make a point in such an agressive manner.

Of course, we could have chosen to leave rather than argue the point. Some of the unpleasantness would have been avoided by doing so. But it also would have allowed the bullies to go unchallenged. What you need to understand is that this is not the first time Mary-Jane and her security friends have done this kind of thing:
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/oxford/2008/07/403458.html
We felt it was important to stay and insist on our right to be allowed in. Some might disagree - fair enough - but even if you think arguing our case was the wrong thing to do it certainly wasn't aggressive or intimidating!

> I did not go to the after party at the centre as I did not want to be in the mddle of this mob.

Well, many people continued to go into the building while the incident was going on, so obviously not everyone felt the same as you. Several people actually commented during the day that they didn't go in because they found the *door staff* intimidating.

> No one has the right to behave like they did.

Again, please specify what the unacceptable behaviour was. Is disagreeing vocally with the door staff such a crime?

> The security staff should be commended for their calm, response to the behaviour of the mob.

This is complete bollocks. They were not calm in the least. At one point one even yelled at me 'get back or I'll kill you, I'll kill you'. Does that sound like calm behaviour to you?

> The police I believe arrested 2 people who were there in the middle of the mayhem from what I saw they would not calm down.

This is also rubbish. The people arrested were in fact fairly calm at the time of their arrest. This can be seen clearly in the video. It can also be clearly seen that they were both arrested on the advice of Mary-Jane Sareva, who pointed them out to the police.

> The carnival last year run under the old Social Club was ok except 2 men tried to
> bottle each other. At least one of the security staff were the same ones that stopped
> that incident having muderous conciquences.

I agree that some of the door staff have indeed done some good work in the past. That doesn't change the fact that how they acted on this particular day was out of order.

> The mob I am told rent a room in the community centre, they really should have
> more respect for other people in the building and events going on.
> I would urge the mangement organisation of the community centre to deal with this group.

If you are referring to OARC, I believe most of the other community centre regulars would agree that we have always been friendly and helpful and have contributed in many ways to EOCC, just as other groups have. We are more than happy to do so; it's part of being in a community!

One of Hawk's directors has stated that Hawk Security were not employed for that event at all.

Although several of the door staff involved were the same ones that have been witnessed on many previous occasions working for Hawk, it's possible that on this occasion they were either working freelance or that Mary-Jane may have her own security company. Investigations are ongoing.

It doesn't take much for the greenazis to fly their true colours. I discovered this as a tenant of one of Sareva's colleagues: she broke a verbal agreement, threatened an illegal eviction, lied to her solicitors, slandered me and then had the gall to whinge when I got a lawyer and the press onto her.

Green is an appropriate colour - they are pondlife. They are scum.

I have to take issue with David's comment - of course we might have expected such authoritarian behaviour from most City Councillors, but it's precisely because the greens in Oxford are actually generally decent community activists who have been supportive of so much local grassroots stuff that we were so outraged.

I don't think that Green councillors should employ gangs of security men in black leather. In fact I have heard another Green councillor comment that these people are like gansters and he/she doesn't like it.

I don't think influential Greens should condone letting down car tyres either, not even the tyres of big cars.

None of this will win them votes. If the East Oxford Community Centre incident had happened in Africa or Asia or Moscow, their parliamentary candidate would be trying to get himself arrested over there in protest. Charity begins at home. Sometimes there is a tendency for the Green élite to assume that they can do no wrong, only the rest of us can do wrong.It can be very close to religious zeal.

Sure enough, no comments about this from local Greens. What their colleagues get up to is none of their business --- I’ve heard it before. Meanwhile, their parliamentary candidate for Oxford East is in Belfast assuring muscular christians that King Billy was gay. There’s another excellent way to get into trouble and get into the headlines.