BAA added a new own goal to its string of recent cock ups, when it emerged the judge hearing their case today was not only a member of the RSPB but also a benefactor of both The Campaign for the Protection of Rural England and The National Trust. She declared her interest as part of the opening session.
All three organisations' members risk criminal prosecution if they breach terms of an injunction being sought by BAA in court today.
All three organisations' members risk criminal prosecution if they breach terms of an injunction being sought by BAA in court today.
John Stewart and Leo Murray outside the High Court today
Timothy Lawson-Cruttenden, appearing for the claimants tried to extricate them from the mess they find themselves in by presenting a barely comprehensible argument resting on a definition of protester. He was, he claimed, only trying to injuct people from behaving unlawfully, yet the injunction application - now at draft eleven - still appeared to potentially criminalise five million people.
By 2.45 the judge was still not clear on his submission, and by 3.15 she'd had enough.
Come back in the morning, she directed, and give us a coherent skeletal argument.
Until that has argument has been delivered, understood and accepted the court has no idea what it is being asked to consider.
Lawson-Cruttenden then proceeded to offer evidence to support his application.
The crux of his submission is that there is evidence - much of it downloaded from activist websites - that direct action could occur. But it was a halting and muddled presentation.
Quoting NoTRAG he noted that its Chair had publicly welcomed Climate Camp. But he then quoted her as saying they weren't a direct action organisation.
And showing callous indifference for peoples' lives, he highlighted a NoTRAG spokesperson's statement that "This community will be destroyed if the third runway is built at Heathrow". This he said implied direct action.
This was offered as evidence IN SUPPORT of the injunction.
Press releases from the targeted organisations were full of "military language", featuring phrases like "we've got a fight on our hands". But other quotes were offered up from activists. Leo Murray was quoted as saying, "Peaceful direct action can make a real difference".
And whilst Lawson-Cruttenden delivered a pile of references from the the Earth First site, he made little of his first quote in which he stated that, as well as peaceful direct action, they make use of relevant legal process.
Even quotes from the airportwatch site seemed to contradict his statement that direct action was about fear and intimidation. "If non-violent direct action appeals to you" he read "see what Plane Stupid (web reference given) are doing".
The whole presentation (the defendants have their day tomorrow) was one of bumbling and mumbling, in which the prosecution had to be frequently helped to find its references by the defence team.
The judge cautioned against accepting newspaper articles - widely offered by the BAA brief - as evidence and at one point the defence counsel was forced to point out that words he'd attributed to John Stewart of HACAN weren't actually his, simply a comment pursuant to his statement.
The case continues tomorrow, and the court will probably not reach a verdict until Friday.
By 2.45 the judge was still not clear on his submission, and by 3.15 she'd had enough.
Come back in the morning, she directed, and give us a coherent skeletal argument.
Until that has argument has been delivered, understood and accepted the court has no idea what it is being asked to consider.
Lawson-Cruttenden then proceeded to offer evidence to support his application.
The crux of his submission is that there is evidence - much of it downloaded from activist websites - that direct action could occur. But it was a halting and muddled presentation.
Quoting NoTRAG he noted that its Chair had publicly welcomed Climate Camp. But he then quoted her as saying they weren't a direct action organisation.
And showing callous indifference for peoples' lives, he highlighted a NoTRAG spokesperson's statement that "This community will be destroyed if the third runway is built at Heathrow". This he said implied direct action.
This was offered as evidence IN SUPPORT of the injunction.
Press releases from the targeted organisations were full of "military language", featuring phrases like "we've got a fight on our hands". But other quotes were offered up from activists. Leo Murray was quoted as saying, "Peaceful direct action can make a real difference".
And whilst Lawson-Cruttenden delivered a pile of references from the the Earth First site, he made little of his first quote in which he stated that, as well as peaceful direct action, they make use of relevant legal process.
Even quotes from the airportwatch site seemed to contradict his statement that direct action was about fear and intimidation. "If non-violent direct action appeals to you" he read "see what Plane Stupid (web reference given) are doing".
The whole presentation (the defendants have their day tomorrow) was one of bumbling and mumbling, in which the prosecution had to be frequently helped to find its references by the defence team.
The judge cautioned against accepting newspaper articles - widely offered by the BAA brief - as evidence and at one point the defence counsel was forced to point out that words he'd attributed to John Stewart of HACAN weren't actually his, simply a comment pursuant to his statement.
The case continues tomorrow, and the court will probably not reach a verdict until Friday.
Comments
Hide the following 9 comments
TLC's last stand?
01.08.2007 20:34
Looks like BAA have paid out for another TLC injunction that is doomed to fail, and make them look plane stupid.
injuncted
..
01.08.2007 22:27
tipobarra
shhh! Don't mention the other injunctions, they were for bad people.
01.08.2007 23:25
Nicely done, Leo, that's the kind of solidarity that really helps to strengthen social movements.
niemoller flew short haul
solidary
03.08.2007 12:45
I agree that Leo Murray should not have said that, if he did.
Protection from Harassment Act was formally intended to be used against:
* stalkers
* neighbours from hell
* racial harassment
in each case where the individual actions are not serious but become serious because they are repeated.
However some actions, such as digging up bodies, do not just bring Animal Rights into disrepute but to some extent all campaigning.
Solidarity requires all who expect support from others to be responsible for the effect of their actions on others.
solidary
bringing campaigning into disrepute
03.08.2007 18:54
I'm sure everybody will understand that Leo Murray was only referring to people digging up corpses when he referred to "animal rights nuts" and not any of the other people affected by injunctions other than Newchurch (e.g. Charon, HLS, DHL, Oxford Uni...) and will not see him as equally myopic about the purity of his chosen crusade as the Newchurch gravediggers.
niemoller flew short haul
apocryphy is the sweetest luxury
05.08.2007 08:55
I thought it was right to post it on Indymedia as this seems the best place where those who may be affected by it are likely to see it, although they may not be the intended audience of that video.
I didn't think it was worth discussing it with you personally as it simply confirmed the unspoken consensus expressed in all the press comments on the proposed injunction by Plane Stupid and the other Climate Camp groups. Every restatement of the idea that "They can't do this to us, we're respectable people, some of us are in the National Trust!" carries with it a subtext of "Those other injunctions were okay, they didn't affect people like us."
It's perfectly possible to disagree with the actions of the car-bombers and gravediggers without insulting them (examples can be found in Arkangel 3,
Perhaps you should be asking your lawyers for a bit more explanation of the PfHA, then you might know about the essential failure of the SHAC and EDO injunctions, which happened without selling anyone down the river. And, you would know that TLC has been able to profit from the Act so easily because he helped draft it - it is the law itself which is at fault, not those who have suffered by it, and any statement which appears to condone its use against protesters is damaging and divisive.
You betray your true colours by referring to "peaceful protestors", and in so doing insult and defame anybody who has ever lacked the necessary privileges to choose pacifism. It's those people who are most affected by climate change, who you sometimes claim to care about, but you'll happily fuck them over in a heartbeat if it makes you look better before the beak.
If you had a bit more integrity yourself then you wouldn't be able to stomach putting "miles of clear blue water between us and the animal rights lot", you'd stand up for yourself and them, recognising that is the "animal rights lot" who have done the most to fight the PfHA and the associated depredations of NETCU et al. I may not agree with everything you have to say but I'll superglue myself to death for your right to say it. Can you say the same?
As for your request that I email you to "get this straight", if your politics aren't worthy of public discussion, they're not worth discussing at all.
niemoller flew short haul
curioser and curioser
05.08.2007 08:57
niemoller flew short haul
curious?
05.08.2007 10:20
imc person
real humans
09.08.2007 18:20
Your argument for not discussing your misgivings with me personally is rubbish. Clearly you just don't have the balls to act like a decent human being and try to resolve differences with openness and mutual dialogue. There was really no need for any of this, you're just a nasty, sneaky shit-stirrer. Stop hanging around me. Nobody invited you.
So much of what you say about Plane Stupid and the Climate Camp is wrong, I won't bother to try to correct you. Anyone reading these weasel words should just come along to the camp and get involved.
As for anyone offended by my flippant and careless comment, I sincerely apologise. It was definitely rash and I shouldn't have said it, and I totally understand how it could feed into the mainstream media's poisonous narrative of the animal rights movement in a really damaging way. I was under a lot of pressure and probably listening to my lawyers advice a bit more than is healthy for anyone. Sorry about that.
Leo Murray
e-mail:
leo"planestupid.com
Homepage:
http://www.planestupid.com