Is there not a danger that such a small and passive protest, whilst in theory welcome, will only show Clarion that they do not need to worry about CAAT as a protest group?

Confronting arms companies must either be carried out at a lobbying level, by far larger organizations such as Christian Aid, or at a confrontational direct action level, as Smash EDO has shown. I fail to see how CAAT’s small and passive demos, coupled with its abortive attempt to get a judicial review, have achieved anything at all, other than perhaps persuading these companies that they have little to worry about from them.

It would surely have been far more effective had these activists visited the homes of Clarion directors rather than carrying out this half-baked demo?

Thanks for your input. This demo was organised by a local CAAT group (London CAAT) rather than national CAAT. It would, of course, be great if more activists got involved, using a variety of tactics (preferably nonviolent as far as I'm concerned, and no doubt from CAAT's perspective as well). Other grassroots groups like East London Against the Arms Fair, Disarm DSEi, Space Hijackers and the London Catholic Worker have staged small- to medium-sized protests/actions in recent times. However, even the various protests during DSEi itself have fallen off in recent years, so draw your own conclusions.

Despite the very small attendance at this demo (bear in mind it was just before Xmas, on a Sunday and in sub-zero temperatures), I still think there's a place for such actions: leafleting Clarion's non-arms trade-related exhibitions helps raise public awareness about Clarion's involvement in more controversial activities and it is embarrassing for the company and their clients. It is also a tactic to encourage exhibitors to pull out of Clarion's events (CAAT also writes to exhibitors and sometimes people go and talk to them inside the exhibitions) and when this happens Clarion gets negative coverage, as happened when UNICEF and Bounty pulled out of The Baby Show last year, for instance.

Your point about CAAT's judicial review: BAE Systems is now really feeling the heat on both sides of the Atlantic regarding the corruption investigations and is getting a lot of negative publicity over the ongoing cases against them being brought by the Serious Fraud Office. I'm sure that CAAT's influence has not been insignificant in all of this.

(Please note: the above comments are from the author of the original report and do not necessarily represent the views of CAAT or London CAAT)

...at least they are for animal rights activists, other groups seem to get away with it sometimes.

Anyway, I imagine this is more of an awareness-raising exercise - the horse show attendees are probably unaware of the links. Mind you, a lot of horsey people are scum in other ways so maybe they don't care anyway.

Home visits to directors are not illegal.

Under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act, which came into force in July 2005, home visits are only illegal if it could be proved there was intent to cause alarm or distress. I somehow doubt that the CPS could prove that these five CAAT activists could cause any alarm or distress.

Josh is absolutely correct. This ineffectual protest, far from causing the Clarion board to ponder whether its multimillion DSEi contract is worth the risk, will have had precisely the opposite effect.

I think that he is also correct to question the wisdom of CAAT’s abortive judicial review. It failed and in effect gave BAE’s Saudi deal added moral and legal validity because neither elected politicians nor senior judges were prepared to question its behavior.

Andy wrote: "Josh is absolutely correct. This ineffectual protest, far from causing the Clarion board to ponder whether its multimillion DSEi contract is worth the risk, will have had precisely the opposite effect."

The logical conclusion to draw from this comment is that activists who do not wish to engage in acts of vandalism / property damage, violence, harassment or otherwise risk arrest and prosecution should stay at home unless they can muster hundreds or thousands of others to join them. Equally, nobody should make the effort to try and generate wider public awareness and support on any issue by, say, leafleting or running a street stall unless the above criteria are also satisfied.

Andy wrote: "Under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act, which came into force in July 2005, home visits are only illegal if it could be proved there was intent to cause alarm or distress. I somehow doubt that the CPS could prove that these five CAAT activists could cause any alarm or distress."

Is it not harassment, alarm or distress, like s.5 Public Order Act?

Andy wrote: "I think that he is also correct to question the wisdom of CAAT’s abortive judicial review. It failed and in effect gave BAE’s Saudi deal added moral and legal validity because neither elected politicians nor senior judges were prepared to question its behavior."

So exposing the acquiescence (and complicity?) of the Government and the judiciary with regard to illegal activity by multinational corporations is not a worthwhile end in itself? The only basis for the "legal validity" of the Saudi business was that if the Government cries "national security," the judiciary bows down. It seems that as far as you're concerned, campaigners should do likewise.

I suspect that the likes of Clarion and BAE Systems would welcome analyses such as yours. But at least some people are out there doing something, instead of sitting at home slating other people's efforts but not actually bothering to take part themselves.

With regards to some of the comments posted questioning the effectivness of this protest, I believe it is possible to be effective with such an action. This protest was mainly an awareness-raising action and by that criteria it was successful. There are a wide range of protest methods and endless debates could be had on which methods are the most effective. But this protest was in keeping with CAAT's non-violence guidelines. My personal opinion is that if these guidelines are ignored, it makes it easier for companies such as Clarion to portray protesters as up for a ruck.

Sorry but perhaps I am missing the point completely here. 5 carol singers with a few tiny notices standing in the cold by the cycle shelter outside one of the largest exhibition centres in the country trying to make a point about the arms race and probably being overrun & ignored by the most trigger happy civilian family in the world. We're all horsey types in our village and I'm surprised they weren't whipped soundly or indeed shot at by Thelwell's army & sent packing. My neighbours all have locked cupboards full of guns. The elderly lady on the left looks just like one of the church wardens here and she too owns a shotgun. She has the same coat and everything. I only hope she sings better though.

I think I passed through your village in a fox costume a little while back (and I've still got the shotgun wounds to prove it).

Did anyone suggest that CAAT should be violence? Or is Ian implying that Smash EDO advocates violence?

The only impact that this ‘awareness-raising action’ had was probably to convince Clarion that CAAT is totally ineffective these days. A decade ago, CAAT used to carry out highly effective but still non-violent actions against BAE. Its leading activists and even full-time staff were involved in more hard-core actions. But today, not only does it not carry out such protests but what it does do seems designed almost to be non-effective.

CAAT should decide either to merge with one of the mainstream organizations or adopt a far more radical campaigning style because at the moment it is achieving nothing tangible other than providing arms companies protection against a more effective form of campaigning.

josh andy and co say this was an ineffective protest so why didnt they do whatever else they thought more effective then?hwer CAAT stopping you? or perhaps it would have been less reassuring to arms dealers if no protest had happened at all? or are you Generals Josh and Andy leading from the back? "dont do that do what we say instead" indymedia is increasingly host to some of the most fuckwit commentators...

The point is surely not that it is was a pointless protest which had no impact but that it had the opposite effect in showing Clarion that it had nothing to worry about from CAAT.

The simple fact is that large campaigning organizations and the smaller direct action orientated groups have achieved far more in the relatively short time that they have been involved in anti-arms trade campaigning than CAAT has managed in its entire existence.

Instead of calling Andy and myself ‘armchair retards’ and ‘fuckwits’ without any knowledge of what we have or have not done, Simon should try and articulate a rationale argument against the entirely logical points that we have made.

josh and co, why dont you fuck off!

It wasn't you standing out in the cold giving out leaflets and engaging people about the arms trade, was it? no, so fuck off!

GET OFF YOUR FUCKING ARSES PEOPLE, you want some sort of change or reaction from these corporate pigs, THEN GET OFF YOUR FUCKING ARSE! there is surely nothing or noone worse than those or that which seeks to disrespect the efforts of genuinely fluffy and peaceful activists out on a cold day while lots of other people in the world do fuck all to help anything or raise any awareness.
for your information, Josh and co, it was whilst walking past a small yet dedicated leafleting action in the midlands ten years ago that i came to anti-militarism, where i have been doing numerous actions, some effective, some not, ever since. so whats your fucking point? just because the leafleting and demo didn't make it to the ITV news?

pathetic, get off your arses...then maybe you'll learn more about the apathetic uk public and see how hard grass roots demo'ing can be.......

solidarity to all those involved on our struggles against the wrongness we see around us everyday......and fuck you to the detractors like Josh and co.....they are as bad as the enemy sometimes!

"The point is surely not that it is was a pointless protest which had no impact but that it had the opposite effect in showing Clarion that it had nothing to worry about from CAAT."

Either you're a Clarion worker, in which case it got you on here pretending that it had no effect, or you've no idea whatsoever the effect that the action had.

As you did nothing yourself, the only possible thing that can be said is that the CAAT action had more effect. Perhaps you'll show us how to have more effect at the next Clarion event?

Have a nice day

So if I am a Clarion worker – which I am not – why did I suggest that a far more effective tactic, given that CAAT could only find six supporters, would have been a visit to its directors’ homes?

Clearly that isn't a CAAT type of action. Can we look forward to your report on the home visits soon, or will you just be criticising people who made an effort from behind your keyboard?

Not to be negative or anything, but what you seem to be saying gallop is that only ineffectual actions are the CAAT type, sadly.

I doubt visits to directors homes would be much more effective though.

In practice they can always say your mere presence is harassing. Well, it obviously has to have some effect on them otherwise there would be no point doing it.

 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2005/ukpga_20050015_en_12#pt4-pb1-l1g126

126 Harassment etc. of a person in his home

(1) After section 42 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (c. 16) insert—
“42A Offence of harassment etc. of a person in his home

(1) A person commits an offence if—

(a) that person is present outside or in the vicinity of any premises that are used by any individual (“the resident”) as his dwelling;

(b) that person is present there for the purpose (by his presence or otherwise) of representing to the resident or another individual (whether or not one who uses the premises as his dwelling), or of persuading the resident or such another individual—

(i) that he should not do something that he is entitled or required to do; or

(ii) that he should do something that he is not under any obligation to do;

(c) that person—

(i) intends his presence to amount to the harassment of, or to cause alarm or distress to, the resident; or

(ii) knows or ought to know that his presence is likely to result in the harassment of, or to cause alarm or distress to, the resident; and

(d) the presence of that person—

(i) amounts to the harassment of, or causes alarm or distress to, any person falling within subsection (2); or

(ii) is likely to result in the harassment of, or to cause alarm or distress to, any such person.

(2) A person falls within this subsection if he is—

(a) the resident,

(b) a person in the resident’s dwelling, or

(c) a person in another dwelling in the vicinity of the resident’s dwelling.

(3) The references in subsection (1)(c) and (d) to a person’s presence are references to his presence either alone or together with that of any other persons who are also present.

(4) For the purposes of this section a person (A) ought to know that his presence is likely to result in the harassment of, or to cause alarm or distress to, a resident if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think that A’s presence was likely to have that effect.

(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks or to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, or to both.

(6) In relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (alteration of penalties for summary offences), the reference in subsection (5) to 51 weeks is to be read as a reference to 6 months.

(7) In this section “dwelling” has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Public Order Act 1986.”

(2) A constable in uniform may arrest without warrant any person he reasonably suspects is committing or has committed an offence under section 42A (as inserted by subsection (1)).

(3) Subsection (2) ceases to have effect on the commencement of section 110 of this Act.