Alan Lodge's Blog

Now starting day 3 of the trial of the 11 defendants, accused of aggravated trespass at the Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station. Prosecution and defence case having been heard, today was about final statements and the summaries of evidence given over the last couple of days.  A number of defendants were defending themselves and hence conducted the closing statements themselves.

First defendant to speak SB.  She is convinced that many death and serious injury are directly resulting from climate change.  Believes that there can be little doubt about it. Thus an obvious case has been made out to use the defence of necessity.  Therefore, it is reasonable in such circumstances to take responsibility and to do all we can to minimise CO2 emissions.

Next EF reiterated her belief that these events where not simply a protest but a direct action, to stop CO2 emissions for a long as they could.  All defendants have said this under oath.

According to calculations made equating quantities of CO2 emissions, to the resultant deaths, she believes that the action of shutting down the burning of coal for the duration of the occupation had directly saved 10 lives.  We would have remained as long as we possible could,  and that this was obvious to E-On staff.  Matters were bought to a close by police action, and the cutting of locks, not by voluntarily giving up the occupation.

She concluded by reiterating that it was the defendants intention that was important here. The fact that we could not remain as long as we liked is not relevant.  It is the authorities action that drew matters to a close, not ours. 

The crown had been seeking to suggest that by the action finishing as it did, earlier than intended and without people being more vociferous in their resistance, made their defence of necessity harder to sustain.

Another defendant AW pointed out that no one action can stop climate change. However the cumulative efforts of many people might do so. This opinion was supported by Dr Lewis in his evidence yesterday. He then reminded the court that Mr Smith, the Ratcliffe station manager, had been unable to produce figures that the defence had asked for on the operations of the station during that time. Remember he had simply said: “he hadn’t had the time to produce them”.  We should thus look on the claim that the Ironbridge plant that had been fired up to compensate for the lack of generation from Ratcliffe during the period, and had produced greater emissions than Ratcliffe, with some suspicion. It is perhaps true that Ironbridge had not in fact produced more CO2 emissions than Ratcliffe during this time.

Dr Lewis had said that it was reasonable to take actions that reduce CO2 emissions.  Further, unless immediate action was taken, then it is obvious that death and serious injury would result.  He had said that the time for action was now. In fact more action should have been taken already.  There is now only a 50 – 50 chance of meeting the 2 degC target that had previously been referred to without very significant efforts.

He reminded the court of the earlier analogy that had been cited, to describe the belief of necessity the defendants are relying on:  If Anne Frank had stolen a car to escape from the Nazi’s, then would she really have committed an crime and be guilty of an offence? Or should she have waited for a knock on the door?

Many other have tried to shut down coal-fired power station all over the world. There have been at least 14 other attempts. In 2006, over 600 people had also tried to occupy and shut down the Drax power station, situated near Selby in North Yorkshire.  This was in fact, the UK’s leading CO2 emitter.  Those people were not of a violent nature, and neither are we. He again reminded the court of the sentiment express by Al Gore:  That he could not understand why many more people are not trying to shut down all coal-fired power stations.

Next to give his closing statement was TA.  He said that he did reasonably believe that CO2 emissions did pose a threat to life.  The sole purpose of his actions that day were to do all within our power to stop emission for as long as possible. That we were not simply protesting about the issue, and our actions were reasonable and proportionate in all the circumstances.  We engaged in the biggest action that we could have taken there. I do feel the immediacy of peril.  It is also a long term threat and feel that our immediate families and friends are at a significant risk.

The action wasn’t pre-planed as an advanced, highly organised military operation. We simply bought a few chains and locks and went and did it.

Mr Cunningham for the crown put it to him, that you’re just a specialist interest group, aren’t you?  We should rely on our democratic structures to deal with these matters and concerns.

TA replied that we are simply a group of individuals with concerns.

The rest of the defendants reiterated most of the points that had already been covered here, with Mr Cunningham continuing to seek to put to each that by any measures, they are all simply protesters and not taking the rescue actions they claim that would be required to make out for the defence of necessity that they were seeking so to do. All had denied this.

One of the eleven defendants had not given any evidence in the trial.  Further he had not made a closing speech.  In fact he had said nothing throughout the hearing. It transpired that on his arrest he had not made a statement or answered any questions.  Further, that in the preparations of the case, the police had not correlated their statements that described what he had done, were he had been, and who arrested him!

District Judge Morris Copper said the charge had not specified what he did within the trespass.   No evidence of location, further that there is no evidence of being in a building.  He said that the crown might say that an inference can be drawn from the surrounding circumstances that he was involved in and being part of a common enterprise.  However, I can’t see his specific links to this action.  It is however proper for me to draw adverse inferences from his actions.  He did enter land as a trespasser and that there was evidence to suggest he was involved in the joint enterprise.

However, in my opinion, the prosecution has not proved matters to my satisfaction.  The case having not been proved against him, I thus dismiss the  charges against him.
Wooooowah!

There was much congratulation from all the other defendants and supporters, and he then danced a small jig around the court. Mr Cunningham smiled 🙂

DJ Cooper returned to court saying that he needed a few days to write his considered judgement on the rest.  He would only need a few days to do this, but because of the court calender he could not do it until Monday 25 February at 10.00am when he would deliver his written judgement. All were bailed to return.

Before rising, he said that he wished to compliment all the defendents on on the way they had handled themselves and on the presentation of their case.

This author also wishes to associate myself with the Judges comments. 

Bloody well done each!
I wish all well and that the right verdict does get finally get returned.

The prosecution case having closed yesterday. The defence opened today with their expert witness: Dr Simon Lewis, a climate scientist at the University of Leeds and Royal Society Research Fellow.

Scientific evidence suggests CO2 add to global warming temperatures and if reduced, would minimise climate fluctuations. There is no doubt that there is a causal relationship between CO2 and climate change. It is however difficult to unambiguously associate rise in CO2 with specific changes in weather events, and thus mortality of any individual. So, scientists talks about statistical probabilities.

He cited various examples of catastrophes across the globe from every continent. World Health Organisation figures say that currently 150,000 people per year die of effects directly attributable to climate change. Closer to home, the 2003 heat-wave across Europe is probably responsible for 35,000 additional deaths over the ‘background’ death-rate, that might have been expected.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) says that there is a direct link between the increases in CO2 emissions and an increase in mortality. They are concerned and acknowledge the idea of ‘tipping points’. Thresholds of irreversibility. Put simply ‘points of no return’. An example of which would include the loss of the polar icecaps. As they continue to melt, there is thus a smaller area to reflect sunlight, there is thus a consequential rise in temperature that further results in yet a greater increase in the rate of ice melting. There are different tipping point thresholds for different earth systems, the Amazon Basin, the Arctic, coral reefs etc.

There is no doubt, that to reduce these tipping point thresholds, there is a need to reduce carbon emission. What is a safe limit? It is difficult to say but suggests a tipping point might be crossed at global average temperature of 2 degC above pre-industrial levels. Currently we’re at 0.74 to now with 1.34 left to this point.

Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research reports point out that not only is it necessary to prevent further emissions, it is further necessary to remove some that is already there. Some CO2 will remain in the atmosphere for centuries. But there would be some relief in taking immediate action to ameliorate emissions. We are always playing ‘catch-up’.

On being asked to comment on the prosecution opening statement, that the protesters action could not have had the result of ‘avoiding death or serious injury’. Dr. Lewis said that yes, that it defiantly could have had such a result.

Asked for his views on future trends, Dr Lewis said the scale of future threats could see a global average temperature of 4 degC above pre-industrial levels. This would result in exceeding the capacity of resilience of many global systems. Species numbers collapse, widespread agricultural failure and events like the 2003 heat-wave being a statistically normal event by the 2080’s.

Climate change increases the mortality risks for all peoples. However, dis-proportionally affects such vulnerable groups including the young, old, and the poor. Britain has been one of the largest CO2 emitters since the industrial revolution. We have been emitting longer than many other countries in the developing world. It simply is a fact that the majority of emissions are caused by a richer minority of people.

Is current international action and agreement sufficient to avoid dangerous climate change? The Kyoto Protocol is resultant from United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It was signed in 1997. But, since this date, there has been a substantial increase in emissions in spite of UNFCCC limits, and are still increasing.

We need substantial reductions within the next 10 years. Some experts say that if we want to mitigate major climactic events, we are 25 years to late. But with some immediate actions we may be able to make small changes.

Asked if he thought all experts agree on these matters, he referred to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, pointing out figures and predictions were quite conservative in estimates, to keep the most consensus of 2 – 3000 academics in public universities. There are of course some that are outside of this consensus, but these work for private business.

After his initial evidence, Mr Kevin Tomlinson, acting for 4 of the defendants, then asked Dr Lewis about the targets set worldwide and the generally accepted views of what’s dangerous. Are the current UK targets achievable? To keep below the 2 degC increase on pre-industrial levels, there has to be a 60% cut in emissions. However to give some scope for other countries to have some increase in their emission, to alleviate their poverty, UK targets should be much greater than this 60% already targeted.
 
Mr Cunningham for the Crown Prosecution Service then suggested to Dr Lewis, that we are not dealing with an exact science, there is very much room for error? Of course, we have to deal with probabilities, however there is a consensus from 2 – 3000 climate scientists in the field say the existing climate systems are showing the changes I’ve described. Mr Cunningham points out that the for the defendants to succeed in the defence of necessity, they have to show essentially they were engaged in rescue. He makes efforts to draw parallels between Indonesian illegal logging and forest clearances for biofuels and demonstrating similar risks here. Dr Lewis then reminded the court of the 150,000 people per year that die of effects directly attributable to climate change.

First of the defendants representing himself, AW then gave evidence. He had an obvious concern for his family and friends on the future effects of climate change. The facts and further reading obviously add to this concern. Personally he takes all measures he can to minimise his ‘carbon footprint’. Over the previous week, he had attended the week of activities ‘Spring into Action’. Became scared by the concept of ‘tipping point’ that appeared to indicate matter were even more urgent than previously thought. Further he believed that Ratcliffe Power Station was an obvious local cause of concern and was the 3rd largest CO2 emitter in the UK. Thus with others, walked into the power station and locked onto the nearest bit of machinery. The intention being to stop CO2 emissions for as long as possible. He knew of 15 other such stations had been the subject of actions all over the world. Quoted a statement by Al Gore who had said he couldn’t understand why there is not more action to close down power stations worldwide.

Mr Cunningham for the Crown wanted to know what level of criminality is acceptable in pursuit of aims? He also returns to his continued argument that if you really has serious believe in this defence of necessity, with the ‘imminent dangers’ you describe, then you really would have offered more resistance than you actually had!

Mr Cunningham had returned to this theme with most of the defendants as they gave their evidence in chief. The distinction he was trying to draw was between people who really believe in such imminent dangers would take extraordinary measures to effect a ‘rescue action’. As yesterday, he cited the earlier case of Abdul Hassain, an Iraqi national who fearing persecution had hijacked an aircraft to escape oppression in that country. He appeared to be suggesting that by taking less severe measures, the defendants were simply looking for a ‘legal cloak’ for their criminality of the offences for which they were charged, aggravated trespass. They were in fact simply protesting. This was rebutted by all the defendants saying that if they were simply protesting, they wouldn’t have done so there, It would have been more appropriate to do so in public, visible by many and in front of a media presence to attempt to get maximum exposure and thus to draw attention to their concerns. All said that their motive was in fact to shut the power station down for as long as they could to minimise CO2 emissions.

Next to give evidence was SB.  She said she simply walked into the station and took action because of her concerns.  She has a degree in Ecology, and with that awareness takes all step that she can personally to minimise her own contribution to CO2 emissions. Also attended the Spring into Action week of events and further already knowing about the concept of tipping points and the ecological threats and the associated millions of deaths by the end of the century, represented by the 2degC previously referred to.  Said she thought that it was her duty to take action to attempt to reduce CO2 emission personally. Saying that fear for herself, family and the future and that she also knew about the issues displacing so many people to effectively make them climate refugees. With such worries, wonders if it is right for her to consider bringing a child into ‘this world’.

Mr Cunningham pointed out that the defendants accepted they had committed the offence.  In spite of their efforts, they didn’t succeed in their aim to reduce CO2 emissions, but in fact, had triggered the firing up of another power station. However, SB didn’t know anything of government and company emergency planning that would have resulted by such interruption. Cunningham again put the notion, that they were just simply protesting.  The idea that they really did believed that they were preventing death or serious injury could not be sustained, since the effects were just too remote.  This was denied.

Third defendant TA said the intention was to simply walk into the power station and shut it down. He had been campaigning on environment, climate change and social issues for 15 – 20 years. It is obvious to him that climate change is resulting in many deaths.  Influenced by the earlier event ‘Spring in Action’ held in various locations around Nottingham which drew attention to the issues of concern. He had read information produced by James Hanson, a climate scientist from NASA who is of the opinion that the burning of coal is one of the principle causes of CO2 emissions. The practice needs to be eliminated since it is at least 80% of the problem.  It is so frustrating knowing that Ratcliffe, located locally, is such a major part of this problem.

The plant manager, Mr Smith, in his evidence yesterday said that the firing up of Ironbridge station had created more CO2 than if Ratcliffe operations had not been shutting down over the 5 hours of operation.  Simply didn’t believe this.  No figures were produced to support this as the defence had requested. In fact Smith had simply said that he had not had time to produce them!

The crown put it that surely, you would realise that the authorities would not allow, the successful closing of a power station. There was bound to be a contingency plan. Mr Cunningham makes yet another attempt to show that really, by any measures, they are simply protesters and not taking the rescue action they claim. Yet again, this was denied.

A few more defendants gave their evidence in turn, broadly reiterating most of the arguments as already covered.

The case continues ………………

Dr. Simon L. Lewis is Royal Society Research Fellow, Earth & Biosphere Institute, School of Geography, University of Leeds. http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?tip=1&id=4689

Simon L. Lewis – Research Interests http://www.see.leeds.ac.uk/ebi/people/simon-lewis-research.htm

Royal Society – A guide to facts and fictions about climate change http://royalsociety.org/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630

Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research http://www.tyndall.ac.uk

IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change http://www.ipcc.ch

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change http://unfccc.int

Before the trial started, there was a protest / gathering of 20 – 30 people outside the court, to offer their support.  Holding banners with the slogan “The Earth is getting too hot. Together we can make it stop”, people were ushered away from the immediate court area by the security and a couple of policemen who were there on station, to make sure no one got into any trouble.

There had been a number of court dates so far, to go through the required administration to distil what was to be decided by the trial.

11 defendants all inspired by the ‘Spring into Action’ week of events held in a variety of places last April in Nottingham, took direct action at the Ratcliff-on-Soar power station. To physically attempt to stop its operations and draw attention to the burning of fossil fuels contribution to CO2 emissions and thus its impact on climate change.

All are charged with ‘aggravated trespass’ an offence under section 69 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. In that they trespassed and then disrupted people engaged in a lawful activity.  Previous argument required a re-specification of the charge and had to enter the words ” and entered into buildings ……”.  All 11 had previously pleaded not guilty.

They are employing the defence of necessity. Their actions were ‘proportionate fearing peril of death and / or serious injury’ by the plants contribution to climate change.

Mr Cunningham for the Crown Prosecution Service opened the case describing the events of Tuesday 10th April 2007.  Accepting that it all was non-violent and was generally good-natured, his case appeared to be that if the defendants really thought themselves at peril, then their actions would have been far more forceful and vociferous!  He pointed out that in a democracy, we could expect the institutions of the state to look out for the citizen interests. Direct actions were thus not required.

So it seems then we just need to write to our MP’s !

The first witness called was Mr Raymond Henry Smith: Power Station Manager.
He was first aware of protesters presence on the site at about 9:15am. He went to the control room and there was informed people were chained to coal conveyor in the coal plant area. Others were chained to the ‘trash screen filtration system’ [device to filter out large coal lumps]. For health and safety reasons, all coal moving plant was stopped and disabled.

Because the station had previously been off-line after the Easter bank holiday and thus reduced demand, they had a full stock of coal.

However, people were locked onto the conveyor that took coal from stocks to the storage bunker. Thus the station was able to continue in operation using what remained in the bunker. Depending on the burn rate, there were perhaps 5 hours of supply available.  Marketing Department of E-On management thus instructed the starting up of another power station, ‘Ironbridge’ which for technical reasons takes a number of hours, burning a substantial amount of oil to ‘warm it up’.

Ratcliffe Station has 4 generators producing 2000Megawatts.  Only some of this capacity was on load at the time and was being progressively reduced. But should the protestors have remained there for very much longer, it would have resulted in the complete shutting down of the operations. Mr Smith agreed that the loss of generation capacity would have also implied a reduction in the amount of CO2 emitted. He pointed out though that the firing up of the Ironbridge plant required some £16,000 of oil thus creating an associated amount of emission, but the plant didn’t not get round to generating any replacement energy before protesters where removed and Ratcliffe came back on-stream.

It was put to Mr Smith that the Ratcliffe station was the 3rd largest emitter of CO2 into the atmosphere from the UK. He disputed this, but didn’t have the figures available to him.  The defence had earlier asked for the production of statistics, records and general management figures on the operation of the plant, but he had not bought them with him.  When pressed said: “he hadn’t had the time to produce them”. He did say however that emissions are within those set out in government legislation. These target operate company & nationwide rather than those from individual stations. They make monthly returns to the Environment Agency and Ratcliffe has benefited from hundreds of millions of pound investments in attempt to reduce emissions.

Further, he didn’t recognise other figures put to him from CARMA – Carbon Monitoring for Action [ http://carma.org ]  that suggested 12.8 million tons of CO2 emitted by coal fired burning, but said it depended of power outputs. He agreed renewables were still quite a small proportion of total generations by E-On. He declined to say anything about the companies nuclear ambitions for the future.

Power stations possibly have a shelf life of 25 years. Ratcliffe is now 40 years old, but frequently upgraded. He didn’t agree with James Hanson of NASA who had said that coal-fired burning should be abandoned altogether.

Next witness was Mr Christopher Marsh: Assistant Shift Team Leader.
He attended a briefing re the protest and had been designated as the “incident controller”. On visiting the location, he saw 4 policemen in attendance and 3 protestors at the base of the junction tower [the confluence of the coal conveyors]. Others were chained to the trash screens [large object capture filter] and the hand rail. More were D-locked onto ‘fire protection pipe-work and the top of the tower. Mr Marsh said some of these places were very unsafe and negotiation took place asking people to re-locate.  Later he said, police took control and were supported by E-On staff.

Mr Marsh agreed that if protestors had stayed where they were for longer, this would have resulted in the plant operation coming to a close.  Further, that the action did directly result in a reduction of CO2 emission from Ratcliffe.  No other staff at the power station were disrupted in their activity and hence they were quite targeted in effect. A lighter moment was when he was asked to ‘put himself in the protestors shoes’, could they have done anything more to remain there longer. “No” he said, “They were doing their best!”

Last witness of the day was Mr Nicholas John Holick: A Service Engineer.
His duties included being ‘Head of Security’.  He was responsible for co-ordination of the security effort, but had not actually attended the locations within the plant. He had said that the plant was ‘quiet’ in that the operations of the conveyor had stopped, that this, when operating,  could easily be heard from outside of the buildings.

He was asked if had heard how protestors had got onto the site. They just walked onto the site via road 22 and road 6.  No fences or gates were climbed.  A weighbridge attendant did see people coming and expected them to arrive at his office where he would have told them they were coming in the wrong entrance. But then they just walked past him!  He could not confirm the reports that some security were reading the paper and drinking tea.

The case was adjourned until tomorrow, when we will hear the principle defence expert witness; a climate scientist, and Royal Society Research Fellow.
The case continues ………………

More background and links about it all, on the Indymedia Feature:

‘Clean’ Coal On Trial

“Web 2.0” in just under 5 minutes. Dr. Wesch was inspired to make this video while writing a paper about web 2.0. Struggling to find a way to put it into words, he decided to make this video to show it rather than tell it. For more information on his goals and ideas behind this video, check out the interview with John Battelle

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLlGopyXT_g&rel=1]

For a high quality Windows Media File (55 MB) download at:
http://www.mediafire.com/?2wnmpy2ibz1

mediatedcultures.net @ kansas state university
The home of the digital ethnography working group, a team of cultural anthropology undergraduates led by Dr. Michael Wesch exploring the impacts of digital technology on human interaction and human interaction on digital technology

http://mediatedcultures.net

MediatedCultures Blog http://www.mediatedcultures.net/ksudigg

Having just read a little background on this work, I discover the author is a right interesting bloke.

Michael Wesch
Assistant Professor of Cultural Anthropology
SASW, 206 Waters Hall
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506
Phone: 785-532-6866
Email: mwesch@ksu.edu
http://www.ksu.edu/sasw/anthro/wesch.htm

The consultation paper Managing Protest around Parliament stems from a Governance of Britain green paper in which the government committed to consulting on the sections of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act covering demonstrations near Parliament.

This consultation takes another look at sections 132-138 of that act, and explores whether there is another way to address the situation that would both uphold the right to protest while also giving police the powers they need to keep the peace.

This consultation will close on 17 January 2008.

Home Office Consultation: Managing Protest Around Parliament

Managing Protest Around Parliament [PDF]

Repeal-socpa : Website for information about initiatives to repeal the severe restrictions on freedom to protest contained in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005

and their take on the consultation at:

http://www.repeal-socpa.info/consultation.htm

The Archers [sorry, but I’m a huge fan], is in the process of covering bio-fuels matters in the plot.  The issues being explored through the views of the diversity of characters.  From the Industro-agricultural outfits, to Pat & Tony’s organic farm operations.

Although I know many are up to pace with the arguements, in putting this on the Archers, I believe that they are putting it infront of one of the largest UK audiences that there are.

“It’s Pat’s birthday but she’s got to spend it at Home Farm discussing her argument against installing an anaerobic digester. Carl the consultant gives his presentation and does well with all Pat’s objections. But when Pat suggests he recalculate his figures without including her and Tony, Adam insists she hears Carl out. Carl acknowledges that if Tony and Pat aren’t involved there might be some other interested party, or they could always grow more crops. Pat jumps on this suggestions, implying it’s irresponsible advice but Carl keeps his cool.

Discussing the idea at the Bull, everyone else seems clearly convinced”.

Archers Plot Synopsis 

Listen again to thursday’s episode

[available until next thursday]

Gosh, isn’t this amazing ….. and if you read the following, it appears to be true.

“Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.”

so there you go

Derby Evening Telegraph
09:30 – 09 January 2008

Police are looking for volunteers to help keep them in the frame by monitoring the streets of Ilkeston and Erewash.

People are being sought to operate the towns’ CCTV cameras to help with crime reduction and information gathering.

They will work in conjunction with police officers, PCSOs, members of the county and groups such as ShopWatch and PubWatch.

Derbyshire police said volunteers would be expected to undergo security checks and take part in at least 20 hours of training but that there would not be a minimum hours of service requirement.

Anyone interested in finding out more is asked to contact Vicki Marriott on 0115 9072019 or 0115 9512027.

Original Story

Ummmm!  So much for data protection and security.  It all gives an idea that there really are more cameras now, than folks to effectively watch them. Hence this appeal, and the progress of automated activity like ‘criminal action’ detection, and the like.

2 January 2008
Press Gazette
By PA Mediapoint

More and more photographers are being wrongly prevented from taking pictures in public places by police who do not understand the law, according to a photography trade body.

The Bureau of Freelance Photographers (BFP) said it had seen an increase in reports of police acting outside their powers in the past 12 months – and expected a further rise in 2008.

In the latest case officers escorted a member of a local photographic society away from a ceremony to switch on Christmas lights in a town centre after wrongly telling him that he needed a “licence” to take pictures of the scene.

“We are getting reports coming in all the time – not just from our members but from various sources,” said Stewart Gibson, head of member services at the BFP.

“And we’re just expecting these cases to keep on going up.”

Concerns about terrorism and paedophiles might be behind the problem, he said.

“Time and time again people are being told ‘you cannot take pictures here’ – things like that. They don’t seem to worry too much about tourists but anyone with serious equipment seems to be a target,” he said.

“It seems now that police have all sorts of powers to stop people doing things but officers often don’t understand what they can do and can’t do.

“There seems to be a feeling that people have some right of privacy in law in some way that means they can’t have their picture taken.

“They don’t. Basically photographers can photograph what can be seen. If you can see me standing at a bus stop you can photograph me. Even when pictures are taken of people on private property – that’s not a matter for the police.”
He said in the latest case two police officers had stopped amateur photographer Phil Smith, 49, from taking pictures of Christmas lights being switched on in Ipswich, Suffolk, in November.

“Mr Smith contacted us for advice. He was escorted away by two police officers after being told he needed a ‘licence’,” said Mr Gibson.

“A ‘licence’ to take pictures in a public place? That’s a new one on us.

It’s nonsense. There seems to be some suggestion that the organisers had booked a ‘host’ photographer. Even if that’s the case it’s got nothing to do with the police. That would be a matter of civil law.”

Smith, of Ipswich, said he had received an apology from Suffolk police following the incident in November.

He said he had been taking pictures of the ceremony and hoped to photograph actress Letitia Dean, who was scheduled to appear, when police intervened.

“I was gobsmacked,” said Smith, a member of the Ipswich and District Photographic Society.

“I was just standing in the crowd when the two special constables came up to me and asked me if I had a licence.

“They said they had seen me taking pictures of the crowd which was not allowed.

“They escorted me away. I was embarrassed because it must have looked like I had committed a serious crime.”

Smith said a police inspector had later confirmed that he had done nothing wrong and apologised.

Press Gazette

The eleven climate change activists who shut down Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station on April 10th 2007 are on trial for three days from Monday 14th Jan at Nottingham Bridewell Magistrates Court.

They have pleaded not guilty to charges of aggravated trespass and arguing that it was necessary to take such action in order to prevent the imminent threat that climate change poses to the human population. They are arguing that the threat of climate change on human life is so imminent & serious that it is a proportionate and reasonable response to commit aggravated trespass to try to reduce carbon emissions from England’s 2nd largest CO2 emmiter, Ratcliffe on Soar power station.

On April 10th 11 activists walked into Ratcliffe on Soar Power Station and locked onto coal machinery & conveyor belts in order to prevent the power plant from working. They prevented the plant from re-charging after the Easter break for 5 hours. They were cut free by police and arrested for aggravated trespass.

This is the first time that the defence of necessity in relation to climate change has been used in a court of law. The defendants will call an expert witness; a climate scientist, and Royal Society Research Fellow, to prove to the court the scale and imminence of the threat that climate change poses.

The Trial is expected to last 3 days.

There will be a supporters demonstration 9:30am on Monday 14th January, please come along and give your support to the fight against climate change.

press@eastsideclimateaction.org.uk
http://www.eastsideclimateaction.org.uk

Poster to download and distribute

Spring into Action :: Ratcliffe-on-Soar Power Station 1

Spring into Action :: Ratcliffe-on-Soar Power Station 2

Spring into Action :: Ratcliffe-on-Soar Power Station 3

Climate activists in court – report

Tacking climate change: East Midlands: Local Govt Consultations

A number of photographers documented aspects of the camp, and the surrounding police actions. A selection of this work, is currently being shown in the foyer [and o/s Screen 1] of the Broadway Cinema, Broad Street, Nottingham.

The exhibition is in digital form on high quality small screens , and will last throughout the month of January.

Contributing photographers
http://www.minimouse.me.uk/photographers.html

Camps for Climate Action are campaign gatherings (similar to peace camps) that have taken place to draw attention to, and to act as a base for direct action against major carbon emitters, and to develop ways to create a carbon-neutral society. Camps are run on broadly anarchist principles – free to attend, supported by donations and with input from everyone in the community for the day-to-day operation of the camp. In 2006 a camp took place near Drax power station and in 2007 near Heathrow Airport. Camps seek to set an example of what a sustainable society might be like. Decision making is by consensus and much of the material used to created structures for the camp is reclaimed waste from building sites which would otherwise have been sent landfill.

Camp for Climate Action 2007
http://www.climatecamp.org.uk

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Camp

More on this display, on Indymedia at ………….

Hahahahahahahaha. & Haha again.

The criminalisation of protest at large, has been enthusiastically policed by the police.

Many peaceful actions and demonstrations have been attacked with some force and enthusiasm. It seems now the police themselves have a grievance and wish to protest, to draw attention to their case.

However, they are now crying in their beer about the restrictions placed upon them.

I might try and go myself.

Intention: to photograph the organisers and scale of the event. To record actions of wrongdoing and public order issues. Thus to provide evidence to prosecute. It might also be interesting if police try to march in their units. Wouldn’t it be lovely to ’shadow’ the Metropolitan Police FIT team.

Police anger at Commons march ‘ban’

Jamie Doward, home affairs editor
Sunday December 30, 2007
The Observer

Police last night accused the government of attempting to ban 10,000 officers from marching through Westminster in a mass protest over their pay award. The demonstration would be the force’s biggest since 1919.

Relations between the Home Office and the force have fallen to a new low, with the Police Federation of England and Wales, the body that represents 124,000 rank-and-file officers, claiming the government is ‘interfering behind the scenes’ over plans for the march to Parliament on 23 January.

Full story

Ian Bone blog: Police rent-a-mob paid by union to go on march!

Orgreave miners to face cops on pay demo

Sumac Centre, 245 Gladstone St, Nottingham
Skillshare Phone: 07880 937511
To subscribe to the e-list to keep up to date with info about the skillshare as it happens, go to:  http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/sumacskillshare
 
Full listing of events at: http://indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/nottinghamshire/2007/12/388533.html

Skillshare flyer download http://indymedia.org.uk/media/2007/12//388534.pdf

Happy 2008 new year all. 

ps. the Chinese do it better.  This year, there will be events in Nottingham on the 9th 10th February, celebrating the new year of the Rat.

Sam, my son, came to visit for a couple of days. Nice to see him again. ‘My, how he’s grown’. Currently to do with Bassline Circus, tol3, Free-kuency-festival crew & totalresistance. He’s a sound system and lighting/projection bod.

Currently based in Portugal and earlier in Orgiva, Spain ….. He has followed so many other, ex-traveller types,  getting out of the UK,  after the anti-gathering laws occured. Personally, although I don’t get to see him as often as I would like ….. But, I’m glad he has left, because I think in the UK, they would have locked him up by now.

He’s told me they have a convoy mission, overland to India, later in the year. I love him muchly, and wish him well.

 So as not to leave anyone out ….. My daughter and 3 grandchildren.  I guess I’ll put up more of these in time, but still trying to sort lots to upload yet.

This short film is about the young people who were born into the free festival scene that flowered and bloomed through a counterculture in 80’s Britain. From the Stonehenge free festival to the merging of the so called ‘New Age Traveller’s’ and the underground dance scene at Castlemorton and beyond these kids have lived a unique life of ups and downs, grown up in freedom and felt the violent force of the state – Operation Solstice: The Battle of the Beanfield. They have seen the negative effects of laws tailored to curb and their lifestyle in the form of amendments to the Public Order Act and later the new Criminal Justice Act which criminalised their existence. This coupled with the over commercialisation of the UK festival scene that their families dedication helped to create has left the second generation of New Travelers kids with an uncertain future… Until now…. Site4Life.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZFslbnJoIo&rel=1]

They say –  Site4life are 2nd and 3rd generation new travellers who have an amazing amount of talent in making music, performance and art. They have grown up surrounded by festivals and free parties which their parents helped create. This new generation are looking for a positive future.
As a group we will travel and perform at Festivals and local community projects.
We also have plans to build a mobile recording studio. The aim of Site4Life is education for our youth and chances to show case their talent.
We hope to build bridges into mainstream culture for these new travellers.

http://site-4-life.org

Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low stress, non-addictive, gender neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.

May you have a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling, and medically uncomplicated recognition of the new year 2008, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make Christmas a joyful occasion celebrated throughout western civilisation, and without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith, choice of computer platform, or sexual orientation of the wishee.

By accepting this greeting, you are accepting these terms. 

· This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. 
· It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. 
· It implies no promise of the wisher to actually implement the wishes for her/himself or others, and is void where prohibited by law, and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher.
· This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year, or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and said warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher.

So ……… there you ‘ave it.

Happy Christmas all

Tues 1 Jan – Thurs 31 Jan, Climate Camp: ‘Time 2 Act’ : How 2,500 people got together to call for an end to aviation expansion and work out solutions for a lower-impact society. A digital photographic exhibition showing on small screens at the Broadway.

The photographers from climate camp have an exhibition based around large photographic display boards with text. It opened in London at the end of October and will be touring.
 
Based on their work there will be a digital photographic exhibition on tv screens in the broadway from 1st-31st Jan.
They are also up for bringing their work to events with wider submissions/installations, presentations and so forth.
In London there were speakers and an open discussion, and the event was recorded and broadcasted on the radio.
Leeds are hosting it in the first half of February.

View work from the contributing photographers.