Three members of Newcastle Animal Right's summoned to court.

Newcastle Animal Rights | 11.12.2009 00:17 | Animal Liberation | Other Press | World

Three Members summoned before Newcastle Magistrates on 14th December 2009

Three Members of Newcastle Animal Rights have today (10th December) been given court summons on the grounds of -

Town and Country (Control of Advertisements)(England) Regulations 2007 Regulations 4 and 30

Town and Country planning act 1990 section 224(3)
RE: Displaying advertising signage without consent,

Reason being - Whilst attending a Dual stall with NARC (Northen Animal Rights Coalition) all three of us decided to place a small A4 poster on a lampost saying " This company supports the bloody fur trade"

Our Court Hearing is on Monday 14th December 2009 at 10.00AM at Newcastle's Magistrates Court in Market street

We are suprised that this case has been sent to the magistrates because we thought it was only a caution against "Flyposting" however the date of the so called "offence" happend on the 25th September 2009 and now its December so where all quite shocked.

We appreciate any advice given to us and any support too, I'll inform you of any changes.

Cheers,

N.A.R (Newcastle Animal Rights)

Newcastle Animal Rights

Comments

Hide the following 8 comments

Give us a break..........

11.12.2009 00:40

Dunno if you've ever been in a madge's court but be aware they know nothing about the law so best that YOU know it!!
Sounds like a trumped up charge to waste your time and maybe scare ya. You were not advertising anything. What was posted on the flyers was TRUE so can't be false advertising only information for the public.
Another option is to peruse the website www.tpuc.org and know your human and common law rights!!
Good luck!

Confessions

11.12.2009 10:26

The Crown Prosecution Service has used posts on Indymedia as evidence during trials against activists in the past, so should you openly confess that the three people summonsed put up the poster?

Surely it is for them to prove each of you had a role in putting up the poster, and you are making that easier for them. So be careful what you put in public forums until you get legal advice. Also if a lawyer looks at what has happened and the prosecution evidence and says you have committed an offence, you may have just wanted one person to take the blame instead of all three of you getting fines, as I assume it didn't take three people to carry the poster and stick it up.

Best of luck, I cannot see how the CPS decided this would be in the public interest to prosecute - but just don't help them build their case against you!

Chloe

oh please

11.12.2009 11:08

stop talking crap, they are not endangering anyone with telling us they put a poster on a lampost! get real. thats a charge id love to have, to prove the hypocrisy of this government and the police - who are supposed to protect people from corporations but are obviously working with the elites profits in mind.

they should have faxed it stuck it up,put it all over the place. if the company supports the fur trade, everyone should know about it! shout it from the roof tops!!

susan grange

Good luck!

11.12.2009 13:54

Good luck. Respect and Solidarity.

Cambridge

No CPS input

11.12.2009 16:27

Looks like a local authority prosecution from the 'offences' listed - they are conducted by the authorities legal dept. and don't need a CPS agreement.
Did you get permission ? This strikes me as an annoyed local authority.

Eagle

Time to move house ..

11.12.2009 18:32

Think I must come and live in Newcastle - it must be the safest place in the land.

Obviously the Geordie Plod have locked up all their murderers, rapists, burglars, muggers, owners of dogs that crap on pavements and people who illegally download mp3's. Bored with drinking tea in their crime-free utopia, they've got wind of some evil campaigners bringer danger to the streets by putting up a small poster! HORRORS! We can't possibly have that, can we?

Anyone know the time of the next train?

Gregory Beetle

A quick point

11.12.2009 18:44

I believe the company you were outside was Fenwicks (according to your website a while back) who actually have a fur-free policy.

I am inclined to agree with the comment about not making the court's job any easier - in this case I don't think it matters that much, but it's just good practice not to mention details in Indy posts or at least to write "the defendants allegedly..."

It is an obviously stupid case. However, if the defendants had been asked to take down the poster by a council worker and then refused, the cops would have to get involved if the council wanted them to. I think they acted way OTT but if what the defendants did constituted fly-posting and fly-posting is an offence, then they would have committed an offence, no matter how petty and time-wasting we all think it is.

I suppose we'll just have to see how this goes - keep us posted!

Anon

Who was advertising

14.12.2009 23:02

If you were advertising the shop (you are saying it's got fur) you were obviously doing so on behalf of the shop. SO it sahouldn't be you who is fined but the shops management. After all it is THEIR shop that is being advertised.

Advertising Standards Agency

World Topics

Kollektives

Encrypted Page

You are viewing this page using an encrypted connection. If you bookmark this page or send its address in an email you might want to use the un-encrypted address of this page.

If you recieved a warning about an untrusted root certificate please install the CAcert root certificate, for more information see the security page.