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!!

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.

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.