Skip to content or view screen version

Sussex uni protest camp evicted

Sussex Autonomista | 06.06.2009 10:14 | University Occupations for Gaza | Free Spaces | Repression

Camp evicted!

this morning, 5.00 a.m. the Camp against Cuts on Sussex Campus has been evicted under a court order by Campus Security and bailiffs. All people present have been threatened with immediate suspension/exclusion and court proceedings. Tents were being taken down with peopel still in them, no IDs were taken but people present were filmed and photographed.

Since there were only three people present it was decided to leave the camp, all tents and personal belongings have been removed since otherwise they would have been cleared out by campus staff. If anyone had personal belongings there, they are safe.

Please note that there is an injuction in place at the site, see the little wooden post with papers on it.

More info to follow.

Sussex Autonomista


Hide the following 3 comments

don't read!

06.06.2009 11:12

Sussex Autonomistas - never point out that there's an injunction. An injunction is only applied once it is served - to serve it, someone has to be seen/filmed to read it, have it sent to their address, be handed it, and then there's things like posting it on websites that it can be assumed that people read, such as indymedia. So never never never mention that somewhere is injuncted, even in a meeting - you're doing the company/cops job for them!!

legal speak


06.06.2009 16:55

Although I agree that sometimes telling people there's an injunction publicly can be a bad idea, some websites and organisations are required to inform people, like in the case of SHAC. This probably isn't the case here...

It was probably mentioned in this case so that anyone planning on going there would be fore-warned.

A friend of mine was convicted of breaching an injunction once. It hadn't been served on him and noone had told him about it (as far as the courts were aware anyway) but it had been made noticeable - like in this case, it was positioned on posts and stapled to trees and taped to lamposts in the area. It was then argued that even though he hadn't had it served on him or been told about it, it was pretty obvious there was one in place.

They just need to be able to argue that you could have seen it and that reasonable steps to make it available have been taken.

So I don't think it matters here whether or not they mentioned it in the article.

Legal speak


07.06.2009 09:56

So much for 'spaces for free-thinking', court orders and all that.
Pretty hectic if you ask me.
Time to get more of you together, ready for round 2. Sod the expulsion threats, there's always room for appeal.