Action, protest, campaigns, demos and issues magazine features, photos, articles, stories photos of London, New York, Wales, England and photography features music, parties, clubs, events, records, releases drug information, harm reduction, no-nonsense guide punch a celebrity football, features, issues, cardiff city games, useless games and diversions technical info, web authoring, reviews and features site news, updates and urban75 blog urban75 community news and events urban75 bulletin boards join the chatroom search urban75 back to urban75 homepage
London features, photos, history, articles New York features, photos, history, articles Brixton features, photos, history, articles panoramas, 360 degree vistas, London, New York, Wales, England Offline London club night festival reports, photos, features and articles urban75 sitemap and page listing about us, info, FAQs, copyright join our mailing list for updates and news contact urban75
mayday 2k
Mayday homepage Mayday home
photos photos

news news
events events
forums forums

Mayday 2k Mayday 2000
J18 J18 London
RTS RTS

back back

> home - action - mayday - actions

Mayday: legal appeal update
30th January 2009

The House of Lords ruled on the 18th Jan 2009 that the detention of thousands of people for several hours at Oxford Circus on 1st May 2001 was not a breach of any rights.

"The judge held that when she chose to join this demonstration she was well aware that the protest was not expected by anyone to end without serious violence. There is no suggestion that she herself was involved in any violent acts or that she had any other intention than to engage in peaceful protest. Nevertheless she willingly took the risk of violence on the part of other demonstrators with whom she chose to be present, and her own conduct was unreasonable in joining with others to obstruct the highway."

The full judgment:
external link www.publications.parliament.uk

See here for the earlier judgments:
external link www.bailii.org/
external link www.bailii.org

urban75 feedback:

bluestreak: "While about 60% remained calm about 40% were actively hostile, pushing and throwing missiles. Those who were not pushing or throwing missiles were not dissociating themselves from the minority who were. Some members of the crowd were very violent. They broke up paving slabs and threw the debris at the police."

Lies. Quite simple lies. There were very few actively violent people in there, not one paving stone was broken, it is not possible to disassociate with people when you're in such tight enclosure, and there were plenty of people urging against violence.

We have, as usual, been sold out on state lies.

"The judge held that when she chose to join this demonstration she was well aware that the protest was not expected by anyone to end without serious violence. There is no suggestion that she herself was involved in any violent acts or that she had any other intention than to engage in peaceful protest. Nevertheless she willingly took the risk of violence on the part of other demonstrators with whom she chose to be present, and her own conduct was unreasonable in joining with others to obstruct the highway."

Might we not apply the same logic to anyone who goes to a football grudge match where rival firms might be meeting? Or going out drinking in most British towns.

Horseshit, immoral wrong-minded horseshit.

top

Paulie Tandoori:

Confused?! You will be....

4. 1 May 2001, May Day, was not a public holiday in England. Nevertheless the police had been expecting demonstrations.....The organisers had deliberately given no notice to the police of their intentions. They had refused to co-operate with them in any way at all. Their literature included incitement to looting and violence, multiple protests to avoid the police and the encouragement of secrecy. Their publicity material had led the police to expect a gathering on Oxford Circus at 4 pm. But no warning was given of any march or procession or of the route which the demonstrators might take. The arrival there of such a large procession at 2 pm, when the area was already busy with shoppers and traffic, took the police by surprise and led them to respond as they did.

8. Few of those who were attending the demonstration can have been unaware that there was a substantial risk of violence. On 24 April 2001 an article by the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, appeared in the Evening Standard newspaper. He said that he supported the aims of the demonstration, which would be calling for the cancellation of Third World debt, the eradication of poverty, a stop to the privatisation of the London Underground and an end to pollution of the environment. But on this occasion violence was central to the objectives of its organisers. What was planned was not a peaceful protest that might go wrong but a deliberate attempt to create destruction in the capital. He urged all Londoners to stay away from it.

No great surprise as to the verdict, these fuckers had it all stitched up from the outset.

albionism:

I was there. I saw very minimal violence from protesters before, during or after our confinement and a lot of unprovoked violence from the police' And i chatted to several other prisoners in Oxford Circus that evening who were tourists, shoppers, sightseers and they were NOT allowed to leave. I vividly remember an Australian couple waving their passports at the police and being whacked with shields for asking to be let out.

More discussion on the urban75 forums:
Mayday 2001 Oxford Circus - HoL rules no false imprisonment



back to homepage back top

urban75 - community - action - mag - photos - tech - music - drugs - punch - football - offline club - brixton - london - new york - useless - boards - help/FAQs - © - design - contact - sitemap - search