[Imc-uk-features] Fairford feature proposal

Wed Dec 13 12:06:29 PST 2006

Nice one :)

Please, whoever is gonna publish it tomorrow, remember to change the
absolute indy links to relative, i.e. href="/en/.....html".

cheers,

-- 
Shiar

On Wed, December 13, 2006 11:55 am, WietsE wrote:
> Hiya,
>
> After Devlish had initially worked on a feature about the legal victory
> about the Fairford coach stuff in 2003, I did a tidy up and now propose
> the feature for the UK startpage:
>
> Cheers, Wietse
>
> ------------->
>
> Victory For Fairford Coach Campaigners
>
> Picture: http://publish.indymedia.org.uk/images/2006/12/358283.jpg
>
> Campaigners have won a massive legal battle against Gloucestershire
> Police after they proved that the police violated their rights to
> protest when they prevented two coach loads of peace protestors from
> reaching RAF Fairford on the 22nd of March 2003 to hold a day of non
> violent direct action. About 120 people were stopped and searched and
> imprisoned on coaches by police near RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire
> that day.
>
> The High Court and Court of Appeal had already ruled that the police
> acted unlawfully in detaining protesters on the coaches. But on
> Wednesday Law Lords ruled police did violate the right to freedom of
> expression and lawful assembly.
>
> *Photos from previous actions at Fairford:* [1]
> <https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/03/59041.html?c=on#c59054> |
> [2] <https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/07/274366.html> | [3]
> <https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/12/358271.html> | [4]
> <https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/02/285630.html> | [5]
> <https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/10/298829.html> | [6]
> <https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/07/274366.html> | [7]
> <https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/02/285512.html>
>
> *Links:* Fairford Coach Action Campaign
> <http://www.fairfordcoachaction.org.uk/> | Full judgement from the Lords
> <http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldjudgmt/jd131206/lapor-1.htm>
> | We fought the law and... eh... we won? Fairford coaches appeal victory
> <https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/12/358267.html>
>
> This overturned a previous High Court ruling that police did not violate
> the protesters' rights in this respect. Five Law Lords also dismissed a
> cross-appeal by the police against the "unlawful" decision to hold
> protesters on the coaches.
>
> Peace campaigner Jane Laporte, under whose name the case was brought,
> said: /"I am absolutely overjoyed. The Lords have confirmed that freedom
> to protest is something that should be treasured in this country and
> police don't have the right to take it away."/
>
> Lord Bingham said: /"It was entirely reasonable to suppose that some of
> those on board the coaches might wish to cause damage and injury to the
> base, and to enter the base with a view to causing further damage and
> injury. It was not reasonable to suppose that even these passengers
> simply wanted a violent confrontation with the police, which they could
> have had in the lay-by. Nor was it reasonable to anticipate an outburst
> of disorder on arrival of these passengers in the assembly area or
> during the procession to the base."/
>
> The Lords ruled the police actions were unlawful because they were not
> prescribed by law and were disproportionate. Alex Gask, legal officer
> for human rights group Liberty, which had intervened as an interested
> party in the appeal, said: /"Nothing less than our freedom of speech was
> at stake in this case. Unmerited concerns (on the part of the police)
> about some future breach of the peace cannot justify the denial of this
> fundamental right."/
>
> Ben Emmerson QC, representing the protesters, told the Law Lords that it
> was a fundamental right in Britain for citizens to gather to demonstrate
> peacefully on matters of public interest. He said it was the
> responsibility of the police to maintain public order /"in a manner
> which fully respects the rights of those who wish to demonstrate
> peacefully"./
>
> Police who authorised two coach-loads of protesters to be stopped and
> passengers searched while being detained - and then escorted back to
> London - had breached that right, he said. Police lawyers had argued
> that rather than interfering with passengers' human rights, they were
> upholding them by protecting their lives, which would have been put at
> risk if they had broken into the air base. Which suggests that the US
> army are quite prepared to kill British citizens on British soil.
>
> ---------------------->
>
> HMTL VERSION:
>
> Victory For Fairford Coach Campaigners
>
> Picture: http://publish.indymedia.org.uk/images/2006/12/358283.jpg
>
> <p>
> Campaigners have won a massive legal battle against Gloucestershire
> Police after they proved that the police violated their rights to
> protest when they prevented two coach loads of peace protestors from
> reaching RAF Fairford on the 22nd of March 2003 to hold a day of non
> violent direct action. About 120 people were stopped and searched and
> imprisoned on coaches by police near RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire
> that day.</p>
> <p>
> The High Court and Court of Appeal had already ruled that the police
> acted unlawfully in detaining protesters on the coaches. But on
> Wednesday Law Lords ruled police did violate the right to freedom of
> expression and lawful assembly.</p>
> <p>
> <b>Photos from previous actions at Fairford:</b> <a
> href="/en/2003/03/59041.html?c=on#c59054">[1]</a> | <a
> href="/en/2003/07/274366.html">[2]</a> | <a
> href="/en/2006/12/358271.html">[3]</a> | <a
> href="/en/2004/02/285630.html">[4]</a> | <a
> href="/en/2004/10/298829.html">[5]</a> | <a
> href="/en/2003/07/274366.html">[6]</a> | <a
> href="/en/2004/02/285512.html">[7]</a></p>
> <p>
> <b>Links:</b> <a href="http://www.fairfordcoachaction.org.uk/">Fairford
> Coach Action Campaign</a> | <a
> href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldjudgmt/jd131206/lapor-1.htm">Full
> judgement from the Lords</a> | <a href="/en/2006/12/358267.html">We
> fought the law and... eh... we won? Fairford coaches appeal
> victory</a></p>
>
> <p>
> This overturned a previous High Court ruling that police did not violate
> the protesters' rights in this respect. Five Law Lords also dismissed a
> cross-appeal by the police against the "unlawful" decision to hold
> protesters on the coaches.</p>
> <p>
> Peace campaigner Jane Laporte, under whose name the case was brought,
> said: <i>"I am absolutely overjoyed. The Lords have confirmed that
> freedom to protest is something that should be treasured in this country
> and police don't have the right to take it away."</i></p>
> <p>
> Lord Bingham said: <i>"It was entirely reasonable to suppose that some
> of those on board the coaches might wish to cause damage and injury to
> the base, and to enter the base with a view to causing further damage
> and injury. It was not reasonable to suppose that even these passengers
> simply wanted a violent confrontation with the police, which they could
> have had in the lay-by. Nor was it reasonable to anticipate an outburst
> of disorder on arrival of these passengers in the assembly area or
> during the procession to the base."</i></p>
> <p>
> The Lords ruled the police actions were unlawful because they were not
> prescribed by law and were disproportionate. Alex Gask, legal officer
> for human rights group Liberty, which had intervened as an interested
> party in the appeal, said: <i> "Nothing less than our freedom of speech
> was at stake in this case. Unmerited concerns (on the part of the
> police) about some future breach of the peace cannot justify the denial
> of this fundamental right."</i></p>
> <p>
> Ben Emmerson QC, representing the protesters, told the Law Lords that it
> was a fundamental right in Britain for citizens to gather to demonstrate
> peacefully on matters of public interest. He said it was the
> responsibility of the police to maintain public order <i>"in a manner
> which fully respects the rights of those who wish to demonstrate
> peacefully".</i></p>
> <p>
> Police who authorised two coach-loads of protesters to be stopped and
> passengers searched while being detained - and then escorted back to
> London - had breached that right, he said. Police lawyers had argued
> that rather than interfering with passengers' human rights, they were
> upholding them by protecting their lives, which would have been put at
> risk if they had broken into the air base. Which suggests that the US
> army are quite prepared to kill British citizens on British soil.</p>
>
> --
> Indymedia United Kollektives editorial: features and wire moderation
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-uk-features
>