Climate Camp 2007 Sipson Lane

It might be presumed that as entire neighbourhoods are now subject to mob rule the police might have had other priorities but oh no they decided in their wisdom to outnumber climate change activists many of whom were young children or elderly.

The attempts to bully those attending the camp by searching repeatedly, shining lights on people in their tents and all in all treating those foolish enough to be of the opinion that climate change is a problem like terrorists failed miserably.

Many police officers were polite enough and had the decency to look uncomfortable in the role they were ordered to play but others (as has been reported elsewhere) attacked and wounded activists. Suffice to say despite a ridiculously over the top police operation activists did lay siege to BAA HQ for 24 hours.

One policewoman who searched me kindly told me that BAA had contributed financially to the 4 forces involved.

The camp was a credit to those who set it up, well organised, inclusive and safe. Those involved must be utterly exhausted and I hope are taking a break to recover. The liaison with the local people of Sipson, Harmondsworth and Harlington was also commendable.

One local man who buried his daughter who died of respiratory problems linked to Heathrow airport pollution lives with the agony of the certainty that if the runway goes ahead her grave will be dug up and her body removed along with the deceased of 3 graveyards. The Gladys Hammond affair pales into insignificance in comparison to what BAA are planning!!

The government and their chums at BAA are prepared to stoop to any level to make money, ‘choice’ is often mentioned by these sick apologists for climate meltdown i.e. that the right of someone to buy runner beans from Kenya overrides the right of others to clean air and other niceties such as having the house that you have lived in all your life demolished, or being killed by disasters caused by climate change.

The attempt to use the Protection from Harassment Act against concerned citizens to “protect” the delicate little flowers of BAA from suffering any criticism also seems to have backfired. I am just fascinated by the fact that if I do something such as an office occupation against BAA I might face at worst a fine, if I do the same action against a supplier of a laboratory under SOCPA I could spend 5 years in prison.

The handwringing over the abuse of civil liberties in the liberal press is quite frankly nauseating when no journalist to my knowledge bothered to question the savage sentences handed out to animal rights campaigners for example 12 years for being involved in a campaign against Darley Oaks guinea pig breeding farm, or SOCPA, or the abuse of the Protection from Harassment Act when used against animal rights people.

Maybe when environmental campaigners are rounded up and charged with Conspiracy to Blackmail and face 14 years in prison people might just question what they are told by rabid columnists and sensationalist news stories.

The government and their lackeys in the media and the police have peddled the most appalling lies about animal rights people, passed draconian laws and activists are facing years in prison for offences which would have resulted in, at worst, a fine for anyone else.

The state must not be allowed to do likewise with other campaigns.

Does trying to stop climate change now make you a “terrorist” in the eyes of the state?

The Guardian, Saturday August 11, 2007

Police to use terror laws on Heathrow climate protesters

Government has encouraged use of stop and search and detention without charge

Armed police will use anti-terrorism powers to “deal robustly” with climate change protesters at Heathrow next week, as confrontations threaten to bring major delays to the already overstretched airport.

Up to 1,800 extra officers will be drafted in to prevent an estimated 1,500 people disrupting the airport over the period of the camp for climate change, which is due to begin on Tuesday. The police have been told to use stop and search powers against the protesters, who have pledged to take direct action on August 18 and 19 but not to endanger life.

The Metropolitan police chief, Sir Ian Blair, has said he fears a minority of protesters intent on breaking the law could cause massive disruption as Heathrow prepares for its busiest week of the year. Yesterday Met commander Jo Kaye, in charge of the specialist firearms unit, said some people would “want to get their message across using criminal means”.

Scotland Yard’s plans for handling the protests are revealed in a document seen by the Guardian, which was produced by Met commander Peter Broadhurst during a legal hearing at the high court which imposed restrictions on a number of named campaigners.

“Should individuals or small groups seek to take action outside of lawful protest they will be dealt with robustly using terrorism powers. This is because the presence of large numbers of protesters at or near the airport will reduce our ability to proactively counter the terrorist act [threat],” the document says.

The police report makes it clear that the government has encouraged police forces to make greater use of terrorism powers “especially the use of stop and search powers under s44 Terrorism Act 2000”.

The law gives police powers to:

· Stop and search people and vehicles for anything that could be used in connection with terrorism

· Search people even if they do not have evidence to suspect them

· Hold people for up to a month without charge

· Search homes and remove protesters’ outer clothes, such as hats, shoes and coats.

Last night the protesters said they would not be intimidated. “We are trying to prevent climate change by stopping the expansion of the airport. There is no intention to endanger life. Our quarrel is not with passengers but with BAA and the government,” said a spokesman.

The civil rights group Liberty said it was alarmed at the police use of the anti-terrorism powers to deter peaceful protest. “Stop and search powers created to address the threat of terrorism should not be used routinely against peaceful demonstrators,” said James Welch, Liberty’s legal director.

The police tactics have echoes of the 2003 anti-war demo at RAF Fairford where law lords eventually ruled police had acted unlawfully in detaining two coachloads of protesters, who were stopped and searched and then turned back even though they were on their way to an authorised demonstration. Police used section 44 of the act 995 times at the Fairford peace camp, even though there was no suggestion of terrorist overtones.

The Guardian has established that at least two climate change campaigners have been arrested recently at Heathrow by officers using terrorism powers. Cristina Fraser, a student, was stopped when cycling near the airport with a friend and then charged under section 58 of the Terrorism Act. This makes it an offence to make a record of something that could be used in an act of terrorism.

“I was arrested and held in a police cell for 30 hours. I was terrified. No one knew where I was. They knew I was not a terrorist,” she said.

Ms Fraser, a first-year London university anthropology student, has been on aviation demonstrations with the Plane Stupid campaign group, but claims she was carrying nothing at all. The police later recharged her with conspiring to cause a public nuisance.

Court rejects ASBOS for airport activists

Full article posted on Indymedia 18th December 2006

On Friday, Loughborough Magistrates Court rejected calls from the Crown Prosecution Service to slap ASBOs on the 24 Plane Stupid activists who they described as “highly organised extremists” that were arrested in connection with the shut down of Nottingham East Midlands short haul airport in September.

In an apparent move aimed to avoid having the case heard by a jury, the charge of public nuisance was dropped, as was the charge relating to an alleged breach of the aviation and security act.

Plane Stupid lawyer, Mike Schwarz, described the action to the court as a “classic piece of civil disobedience” and reminded the court that “Tony Blair himself has described climate change as the greatest threat facing mankind.”

Campaigner for Plane Stupid, Ellen Rickford, said, “The same day that we learn the government is pushing ahead with its airport expansion proposals, they try to use ASBOs to stamp out peaceful protest. Well, it seems their plans for that were as doomed as the aviation industry.”

Greenpeace now officially ‘extremists’

The latest campaign group trying to change things for the better now deemed ‘extremists’ by NETCU are non-violent environmental campaigners Greenpeace.

NETCU have reported on their website that 25 Greenpeace activists were recently arrested at npower’s Didcot power station in Oxfordshire on suspicion of criminal damage and tresspass.

It beggars belief why the cops from the Met weren’t climbing the tower stacks with Greenpeace in an attempt to save their own children and grandchildren from extinction due to global climate chaos.

Then again in retrospect do MACHINES actually care whether they live or die?

NUJ condemns policing of ‘Sack Parliament’ event

The NUJ has expressed deep concern over the heavy-handed policing of a demonstration outside the Houses of Parliament (9/10) during which a professional photographer was injured.The union is gathering evidence to mount a possible claim against the police.

Marc Valleé (left) was taking photographs in the vicinity of Parliament Square when he received injuries which resulted in him being taken to hospital in an ambulance.

Reports estimated that at least 800 police officers were on duty to police around 150 protestors, consisting of many anti-war and peace campaigners, as well as people who have been campaigning against the SOCPA no protest zone around parliament.

A number of arrests took place during the afternoon and some journalists were seen to be roughly handled by the police as they tried to push people back.

NUJ General Secretary Jeremy Dear, who happened to be in Parliament on union business, witnessed the protest and was shocked at what he saw. He said: “There was a totally disproportionate police presence and an overly aggressive attitude towards around 50 people sitting on the ground.

“I spoke to one observer and asked was there anything we could do. She said, let people know what’s going on. I complained to the MP I was meeting about the heavy-handed policing and stressed that the right to protest should be respected.

“The NUJ is appalled to hear of Marc’s injury and we are in the process of gathering evidence about the incident.”

Another journalist told Indymedia: “During the day about a dozen or saw assorted journalists, camera people, photographers etc found themselves inside the ring of police holding ‘the bulk’ of the protesters – either because that’s where they wanted to be or because they got trapped there. I’m not aware of any of those being allowed to leave the pen in order to file their photos etc – unlawful but sadly not unusual dispite new guidelines issues to the police on treatment of the press.

“Journalists outside of the pen were generally treated with some respect and apart from being hassled to move from places where you could actually see anything, they were generally allowed to get on with their jobs and not threatened with arrest for most of the day.

“At one stage I heard a police office tell a courious onlooker that they needed a lawful reason to be present in the square and that they were either press or protester or shouldn’t be there. It seemed that as far as they were concerned at that stage, there were only three types of people; police, press and protesters. However, that changed as time went on and eventually the police were ordered to hand out warning notices to everyone present, including the press, explaining that their presence was unlawful and they must move of face arrest.

“Obviously journalists carrying out their jobs in parliament square, a public place, could not be commiting the offence of taking part in an unlawful demo and therefore not lawfully arrested but that didn’t stop the police threatening to do just that. I saw several members of the press take these warnings, read them and then move away.

“Worse still, I spoke to several of the journalist who had been inside the police ring. When they were finally allowed to leave along with the protesters (one by one over the space of a couple of hours) they were forced to give their names and address (plus show proof of ID).

Apparently this was so that the police could report them for summons for an offence they could not actually commit., ie. taking part in an unlawful protest. Additionally, and this is the most worrying part of the whole thing, they were then told that they must leave the area or face arrest and were then escorted from the square!” [END]

Video of police oppression at the ‘sack parliament’ demo (youtube external link) here

G8 2003 Aubonne Bridge : Cops go uncharged after almost killing protestors

6.9.2006 [trauma_workinggroup]

G8 Evian 2003: Tribunal confirms police impunity in Switzerland

Final appeal in the Aubonne Bridge Case against the police rejected

Seven months after a judge found two policemen not guilty for nearly killing two anti-G8 activists in 2003, the tribunal of the Canton of Vaud today decided to reject the appeal filed by activists Martin Shaw (English) and Gesine Wenzel (German).

Following on from the shocking «Innocent» verdict against Claude Poget (Vaud) and Michael Deis (Schaffhausen) of 17 February 2006, the tribunal of the Canton of Vaud decided today to reject the appeal.

Gesine Wenzel, whose life was only saved when the activists on the bridge quickly grabbed her climbing rope as it was being cut by Officer Deiss, said, « I hope this decision has made it clear to everybody that this system is corrupt. All this talk of impartial justice and equality in front of the law is pure hypocrisy. We were found guilty for endangering the lives of the car drivers, and yet the police officers who very nearly killed us have had their violent actions whitewashed once again by the courts. Now the court of appeal has proven beyond doubt that there is no way to hold the Swiss police accountable for their abuse of power even when they are caught on video. Our case is only the tip of the iceberg. This is what passes for « justice » in Switzerland. »

Martin Shaw will never fully recover from the 23-m fall where he shattered his foot and broke his back. In principle it is the responsibility of the government of the Canton de Vaud to pay compensation since they are responsible for the actions of their police, but now this juridical whitewash might give them an excuse to refuse payment.

Until now the government of the Canton de Vaud did not even apoligize or show any attempt to review their police strategies despite the fact it became obvious during the court case that there was a complete lack of information, communication and coordination on the part of the police.

Martin Shaw says « I will be crippled for the rest of my life. I have had to give up my work as an electrician. While all the shop keepers got compensation for broken shop windows, activists who had their bones broken by the Swiss police will never see a penny. This is what their « democracy » looks like.»

This appeal was the final judicial possibilty to hold the police accountable for their actions. There is no possibilty to appeal to a higher court due to a restrictive law that prohibits citizens from making direct claims against a police officer at the federal level.

The activists’ lawyer, Jean-Pierre Garbade declared « It is clear that the two police officers violated the law. The fact that now the court of appeal also grants them impunity for very questionable reasons raises big concerns about the protection of civil rights in Switzerland as did the attitude of the general prosecutor who refused to uphold the accusation.»

The activists point out: “This is the exactly the reason, why we believe in direct action and self-management. This system is only pretending to be democratic. The G8 is the best example for their hypocrisy. This decision made us even stronger in our beliefs. Our struggle continues”.

This is the information we have at the moment. As soon as we receive the details of this unjustifiable judgement we will let you know.

For further information, see: www.aubonnebridge.net

Background Information:

Martin Shaw and Gesine Wenzel nearly lost their lives during the Aubonne Bridge Action against the G8 in Evian 2003 when the police cut the climbing rope that held both activists.

Martin survived the 23m fall only due to sheer luck but was crippled from the extensive bone breakage he suffered. Gesine Wenzel had her life saved in the last second by her collegues on the bridge. Both activists were found guilty and sentenced for blocking the road and endangering life in 2004.

They filed a complaint against the police, which was initially rejected. It was only after an appeal was upheld that a courtcase against the senior officer on the bridge, Claude Poget, and the officer who cut the rope, Michael Deiss, took place in January this year. After three days the judge found the police not guilty without being able to produce any reasonable arguments.

The judge, Pierre Bruttin, stated that it was the activists’ own fault saying if they had not been hanging from the bridge, the police could not have cut the rope. Secondly, the prosecutor, Daniel Stoll, admitted that objectively seen, the police had made several mistakes, but that subjectively this was understandable due to the stress they were exposed to and by the fact that this form of protest action was unknown to them. He withdraw the accusation.

Environmental destruction ordered to improve surveillance of protestors

Daily Mirror 11 September 2006
FURY AFTER COPS AXE FIVE TREES

RESIDENTS were furious after a row of 30-year-old trees was cut down – so police could watch an animal rights demo.

Officers complained the five 30ft trees obscured a CCTV camera’s view..

The felling meant they could see campaigners who met in Melton, Leics, for a demo at a supermarket.

Locals said it was a massive over-reaction to the protest ” which went without incident..

One said: “I can’t believe the council has done this just so a policeman sitting on his backside in a control room somewhere can have a better view.”.

Paul Evans, head of the council’s street scene and environment department, said: “I can understand people being upset but it was a police request.”.

But he said shrubs might be planted following “a number of calls”. .

Environmental destruction ordered to improve surveillance of protestors

Daily Mirror 11 September 2006
FURY AFTER COPS AXE FIVE TREES

RESIDENTS were furious after a row of 30-year-old trees was cut down – so police could watch an animal rights demo.

Officers complained the five 30ft trees obscured a CCTV camera’s view..

The felling meant they could see campaigners who met in Melton, Leics, for a demo at a supermarket.

Locals said it was a massive over-reaction to the protest ” which went without incident..

One said: “I can’t believe the council has done this just so a policeman sitting on his backside in a control room somewhere can have a better view.”.

Paul Evans, head of the council’s street scene and environment department, said: “I can understand people being upset but it was a police request.”.

But he said shrubs might be planted following “a number of calls”. .