UN authority says US has no case against Julian Assenge

Frank La Rue, United Nations special rapporteur for freedom of opinion and expression: "If there is a responsibility by leaking information it is of, exclusively of the person that made the leak and not of the media that publish it. And this is the way that transparency works and that corruption has been confronted in many cases". Source

He believes there should be limits to disclosure, which are under discussion, but he doubts that the USA has any existent legal grounds for prosecuting Julian Assenge.

He accepts that the leaker, alleged to be Bradley Manning, must face legal consequences.

(My comment>): Bradley is being kept in solitary confinement, long term, which is a cruel, unusual and inhumane punishment. 

He makes an interesting point about the hysterical calls for Assenge to be assasinated by the likes of Sarah Palin. "That is incitement to hatred and violence. And that is, that falls under article 20 of ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights)."

Blair Peach's case is a stain on British justice

The Cass report into Blair Peach's death has finally been released, 30 years after his murder by the SPG.  It says "was most likely killed by elite riot squad officer".


The British people are like the frog who is in water that is slowly heated up, and makes not attempt to escape until it is dead. We are informed by the newspapers on a daily basis that we live in a wonderful democracy, ruled by the Mother of Parliaments, and how lucky we are to have free speech. As indeed we are, relative to some other regimes. But unlucky in comparison to some other, more free and equitable states.

Murder is murder, no matter what the murderer is wearing at the time of the killing. No-one should be beyond the reach of the law, especially the police, who have a difficult job to do, but who are given special powers to do it. Impunity means that unreasonable violence by the police at demonstrations can and does continue to happen. "Accidental" events, (Blair Peach's verdict was "death by misadventure") can give way to extra-judicial killings.

There is good evidence to identify the unit (U.11) that included the officer that carried out the killing, and "indications" that point to the killer himself. Searches on the SPG turned up illegal weapons and Nazi regalia.

The "punishment" carried out on the SPG was to rename it the TSG - the unit that contributed to the death of Ian Tomlinson at the G20 police riot.

This blog is not anti-police. I am mindful of the savage killing of PC Keith Blakelock, another killing where the killer has not been brought to justice. I am not anti-police, but most definitely against the suppression of justice. Blair Peach and his family have not had justice.

Britain is damaged by this situation. Only when justice is carried through can we all feel that we live in something approaching a democracy. 

NuLabour's cunning plan; kill free speech, wrong-foot Bin Laden

Iain Dale runs the remarkable story that an independent-minded Labour MP who was due to debate Afghanistan has been banned from the venue by a Minister at the MoD, thought to be one Kevan Jones.

I think I detect a pattern in this.

NuLabour sends our boys out to Afghanistan to die, at a rate of one a day, because if they didn't the Osama Bin Bogeyman would come over here and take away our freedom of speech.

Things are not looking good. Victory in Afghanistan is still a long way off.

So maybe Kevan Jones has a cunning plan: if he takes away our freedom of speech, he will have shot the Al-Quaeda's fox. Kevan has made a start with Eric Joyce MP. Other initiatives include curtaining our right to demonstrate, &c &c.

It all makes sense to me now.

Totally unacceptable 70-year gag ruling by Hutton on Dr David Kelly

Dr David Kelly

An astonishing and unacceptable "ruling" from "Lord" Hutton aims to keep details of he death of Dr David Kelly, the Iraq WMD expert, secret for 70 years.

He died shortly after it was revealed that he was the source of a BBC report casting doubt on Tony Blair's mendacious 45-minute claim.

He has never had a full inquest. Hutton stopped the proper inquest, arrogated the judgment to himself, and decided that it was suicide, on the grounds that he had a few co-proxamol in his stomach (not enough to kill him in a short time) and had cut his wrists. The paramedic who attended him said that the blood loss was not large enough to cause death. Oh, and he had a bit of coronary atherosclerosis, like the rest of us.

A group of doctors, including former assistant coroner Michael Powers, are calling for a proper inquest.

The suggestion is that he was killed by Iraqi "intelligence" services. That would be faintly embarrassing for our government, but hardly embarrassing enough for this 70-year cover-up. The alternative explanation is too shocking to think, let alone to write about.

I am going to write to my MP to say I find this ruling of Hutton to be totally unacceptable, and demand that he takes action.

You can copy and paste: using TheyWorkForYou.com

Dear John,

I am shocked to hear that Lord Hutton has ruled that the details of Dr David Kelly's death should be secret for 70 years. This is totally unacceptable. The man has not had a proper inquest, and there are grave medical doubts about the cause of death.

I ask you please to take this matter up with your MP colleagues and to press the Ministry of Justice on this until Hutton's ruling is overthrown.


Yours sincerely,

Richard

Obviously, your MP may not be called John, so you may have to change that bit.

More detail from Craig Murray
Even more detail
Video of toxicologist evidence: his Co-prox level was 1/3rd of a fatal dose.
Facebook activity:
There is an (inactive) page here:
here's another one, more active:

Here's a petition to the PM to get his autopsy released.

I have just found out that one of the doctors who has been campaigning for Dr Kelly to have a proper inquest has had his emails hacked.

Daily Mail, July 2009:

Mr Halpin said that he lost more than 6,000 pieces of correspondence - many relating to Dr Kelly - during his investigation, explaining that the mystery began when the 'firewall' on his computer, which all similar machines are fitted with as a security measure, became inactive without warning.

His emails started disappearing as though they were being sifted remotely. 'I believe this will have been done by a state-sponsored agency and not by an amateur acting singly,' he said.

A close associate of Mr Halpin's who has also taken an active interest in the case confirmed to The Mail on Sunday that at around the same time he, too, fell victim to what he believes was a rogue agent, losing 'somewhere in the region of 2,000 emails', many of which discussed Dr Kelly.

This is far more significant than the CRU email hack. Wish it had 1/10th the publicity.

More on the Daily Mail here.
Entitled "Did MI5 Kill David Kelly?" I couldn't possibly comment, except to say that the DM is not all bad then.

World Population: the Biggest Question of All

Fig 1 Acknowledgments to Optimum Population Trust and UNEP

The question of what to do about the ever-increasing world population of humans is edging ever closer to the surface of political debate. It is the most emotionally charged topic of all time, because it involves an encounter between the irresistible force of mathematical exponential series, and the immovable object of individual human liberty.

The Green Party mentioned it once in a Conference debate, and we did not get away with it. We were damned to hell by the tabloids, and banished to the wilderness.

Things have changed now. Journalists are beginning to ask why no politician ever mentions population. (Answer: see above). Commenters are saying "Never mind the CO2, it is the population increase that we need to worry about". It is quite possible that this is an elephant trap that they are setting, because they will go all libertarian on anyone who dares to pick up their gauntlet.

The man would be an idiot to take up this challenge.

So here I go.

First, an axiom (self-evident truth):
It is impossible to expand forever into a finite space.
(I met someone who was unwilling to accept this axiom, because it implied illiberal thinking. You see?)

Second, the mathematics of exponential growth.
1-2-4-8-16-32-64-128-256-512-1024-2048-4096-8192-16384- &c.
That is a doubling series, and in 15 steps we have gone from 1 to 16,384 and rising. That is what happens if we keep on doubling a number. It is called exponential growth.

The doubling time for world population
between 1881 and 1960 was 79 years,
and for the years
between 1960 and 1999 was 39 years.

In exponential series, doubling times tend to fall by half in each round of doubling.

Since we live on a finite planet, we cannot go on with doubling population. Leaving aside the question of ecological footprint, there would come a time when we would be standing shoulder to shoulder on every piece of land on the planet, not just on the Isle of Wight.

Mathematically and ecologically, doubling population growth forever is a physical impossibility. It cannot happen. It is a dumb idea. It is nonsense. All growth must stop at some point.

And yet, to say that population growth must be stopped is intensely controversial.

Here is a simple biological model. Here is a Petri Dish.

The spots are bacteria.

(I got the photo from Richard Wiseman. Thanks Richard. I don't know where he got it from).









They grow and grow until one of, or a combination of, three things happens:

1. They run out of nutrients
2. They are poisoned by their own excretions
3. They come up against the side of the Petri dish.
   

Here is a video by a maths professor just to show that I am not making this up:

His message is:
"The greatest shortcoming of the Human Race is the Inability to understand the Exponential function".

I feel tired already. I'm going to stop now and have a little lie down, to see if anyone starts calling me a fascist who is reducing humanity to mere numbers, in the comment slot. There may not be any comments, because I have turned off the Anonymous comment facility.

The argument will be continued tomorrow: "Should we curb population, consumption, or both? "

*My local pedant points our that this should read " It is impossible to expand forever at a constant rate into a finite space" because it is possible to expand the series 1+1/2+1/4+1/8+&c forever into a finite space. Or is it?

Terrorism Act 2000 violates Article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights

Liberty Press release:Today the Court of Human Rights ruled that section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (the broad police power for stop and search without suspicion) violates the right to respect for private life guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights.

More

Congratulations and big thanks to Pennie Quinton and Kevin Gillan for fighting this battle on all our behalfs. (Or should that be behalves?)

Akmal Sheikh, Paul Clarke, law in mindless action

Gordon Brown and other senior British politicians have angrily condemned China for executing a British man said to have had mental problems. Akmal Shaikh, 53, was killed early this morning by lethal injection after being convicted of drug smuggling. (Guardian).

Gordon Brown says: ""I condemn the execution of Akmal Shaikh in the strongest terms and am appalled and disappointed that our persistent requests for clemency have not been granted. I am particularly concerned that no mental health assessment was undertaken."

Meanwhile, on 18th December, a British former soldier who faced five years in jail after finding a shotgun and handing it in to police in Reigate, Paul Clarke, 27, was given a 12-month suspended sentence for possession of a firearm at Reading Crown Court today. (Surrey Today)

Clarke had found the gun in a bag at the bottom of his garden, and handed it in to the police, but was arrested and told he faced 5 years in jail, because that is the automatic sentence for unauthorised possession of a shotgun. Possibly thanks partly to a Twitter campaign, Clarke's sentence was suspended, but even so a 1 year suspended sentence is a pretty dark cloud to walk under, especially as Clarke believes Reigate police seem to have it in for him because he had an affair with one of their establishment.

Both cases show the inflexibility of bad laws.
In the UK, unauthorised posession of firearm = 5 years.
In China, drug smuggling = death.

There is a difference in degree, and a certain amount of flexibility in the UK, but there is a similarity in kind, and no cause for smugness or finger-pointing on the part of Britons.

Another parallel that is shown up by the case is that the two major states, USA and China, are of a piece when it comes to belief in the death penalty. It is not good that they share this bararous practice.

Homage to those who stand against the forces of dictatorship

I get choked when I watch these videos of the current pro-democracy demonstrations in Iran. The sheer courage and persistence of the Green Movement, the students of Iran, in the face of the cowardly swaggering police and Basij militia is an example to all who aspire to something better than the moronic, thoughtless exercise of power that holds in Iran, and in a different way, in Britain, where the authoritarians in Tory, NuLabour, the Civil Service and the Police Agencies are slowly nudging us in the direction of the Iranian situation.

These beautiful young Iranians are not just demonstrating for themselves and their own country, they are standing up for democracy everywhere.

If you want to help the Iranian democracy movement, click this link.

Professional Policing?

Further to the Dialogue with an Officer, below, who feels that the G20 Bishopsgate violence is wholly due to protesters and in no way due to the police tactics, take a look at this.
1:44 - officer lashing out with force.
2:08, 2:17 officer using edge of shield.

These people had nowhere to go. The police were not trying to move them on, they were trying to crush them. How can this be happening in Britain?


[Update 7 Nov 2009: Guardian: Culture of Impunity at TSG, 5000 complaints, 0.18% upheld. I rest my case.]

Fair Policing?

This is republished here for the convenience of the police officer who is debating policing standards with me here.

I have asked him to comment on the professionalism shown by the police in this tape.

Evidence of agents provocateurs on demonstrations

An anonymous police commenter on this blog has questioned whether agents provocateurs are used.

So I have searched for instances on the web.

The black bloc anarchist assault on the Royal Bank of Scotland building yesterday certainly had an air of being stage-managed. The target was announced in advance, the authorities knew that the building was a prime target, and yet it was the only one in the street not boarded up. A cafe across the street was boarded up and yet the RBS building was left completely vulnerable to attack. (this link contains a review of more instances)

Liberal Democrat Tom Brake says he saw what he believed to be two plain-clothes police officers go through a police cordon after presenting their ID cards. (This is a common theme that also goes back to Geneva. Demonstrators should look for, and record, this phenomenon)

Here is footage of 3 oddballs in the USA. Version of same incident here.
Saturday September 26 2009: Three undercover officers attempt to infiltrate a March Against Police Brutality at the University of Pittsburgh, but fail miserably due to their horrendous disguise attempts I am including foreign examples, because the nature of globalisation to standardise policing. If Anonymous argues that British policing is not as extreme, it is nevertheless necessary for us to know what it will look like if it comes.

Three masked men, one carrying a rock on a union demo in Quebec. Strong evidence.

Genoa G8 summit 2001. Black Bloc "Anarchists"seen coming through police lines again (see above). Eyewitness account - just one of many, too many for denialists to deal with.

My own personal experience is of being heckled at Aldermaston while doing a satirical performance dressed as Major General Frankley-Madde, ranting against the CND and Feinds of the Earth. The crowd (bored, waiting for hours for the police to let us board our buses) were attentive. Two guys with flat caps and badges placed dead centre were heckling. This hat-badge is described elsewhere as a mark of an AP, so that the police do not hit them. Infiltrators are also known as "hairies" in "intelligence" circles. So be suspicious of anyone with a hat and a beard. Not all, but some may be working for the other side...

I also saw the Sparts (Spartacist League) marching up to join an anti-Iraq war rally in Hyde Park with a huge, professionally made banner, reading VICTORY TO SADDAM. Billy Bragg was speaking at the time, and expressed our feeling "Here come the CIA". A group of us went to meet them, chanted "What about Halabja" until they took their banner down and slunk off home.

By the nature of the beast, it is difficult to prove infiltration and agents provocateurs, but "proof" comes from evidence. The anonymous police commentators on this blog have one view, and will continue to deny. It is our job to be on the qui vive for agents on demonstrations, and to extrude them out of the crowd back into police lines where they belong.

Government Drugs policy criticised by Official Advisor

From the Guardian today:

Professor David Nutt, chairman of the government's advisory committee on the misuse of drugs, criticised politicians for "distorting" and "devaluing" the research evidence in the debate over illicit drugs.The Imperial College professor argued for a new way of classifying the harm caused by both legal and illegal drugs.

"Alcohol ranks as the fifth most harmful drug after heroin, cocaine, barbiturates and methadone. Tobacco is ranked ninth.

"Cannabis, LSD and ecstasy, while harmful, are ranked lower at 11, 14 and 18 respectively," said Nutt in the paper from the centre for crime and justice studies at King's College, London published tomorrow ... Nutt criticised (former Home Secretary) Jacquie Smith's use of the "precautionary principle" to justify her decision to reclassify cannabis and said that by erring on the side of caution politicians "distort" and "devalue" the research evidence.

Nutt acknowledged there was a "relatively small risk" of psychotic illness linked to cannabis use. But he argued that to prevent one episode of schizophrenia it would be necessary to "stop 5,000 men aged 20 to 25 from ever using" cannabis.

...Richard Garside, director of the centre for crime and justice, said Nutt's briefing paper gave an insight into what drugs policy might look like if it was based on the research evidence rather than political or moral positioning.


RL: Cannabis was downgraded, then upgraded again, after pressure from my psychiatric colleagues, who see psychosis brought on by cannabis particularly skunk .

Skunk has been artificially developed to have high levels of THC, the part that stimulates the "branching thought" aspect of getting stoned. Natural cannabis has a higher level of CBD, which has a calming effect, and indeed, there is evidence that it has an antipsychotic (=anti-schizophrenia) effect.

By lowering the THC/CBD ratio, skunk may therefore tip more people into schizophrenia.

We should note that the illegality of cannabis drives consumers to grow skunk, since illegality makes imported grass and hashish more difficult to obtain. Homegrown weed is weak, so peeps turn to skunk.

I agree that drug policy should be changed and liberalised, because illegalisation is a failed policy, which arguably drives up drug use, puts consumers in touch with criminals, carries immense costs in terms of police and court effot, and is contributing to prison overcrowding. It is reasonable tosuppose that it contributes to paranoia.

However, moderate as ever, recognising that drugs policy is driven by irrationality, I would like to suggest that if politicians are determined to use the present absurd system, they should modify it, and leave Skunk cannabis into class B along with cough mixture and speed, but put regular cannabis down again into class C along with ketamine (?? wtf??), tranquillisers and some pain killers.

Anyone can tell the difference between skunk and regular dope. The clue is in the name; skunk has a distinctive smell. In court, there has to be forensic evidence, and the evidence can say what the THC/CBD ratio was in the specimen in question.

So we're bending over backwards here to accommodate the conservatives. Will they buy the logic? Don't hold your breath. It might make you dizzy and euphoric, and we wouldn't want that to happen, would we?

Medical Harm reduction note: If, regardless of Lex Asinus, you insist on exercising your right to mess with your state of consciousness regardless of the law, the best way to take it is either to eat or drink it (be careful of the dose, it takes longer to hit this way) or as a Vaporiser.

[update: within hours of my writing this, Government agents defenestrated the Drugs Advisor for ..er.. giving them advice. That's the trouble with scientists, they only understand evidence, they don't understand politics]

Hunting for my police file

OK, surfing the wave of the Guradian's front page story on police records of non-criminal protesters, I set off to find what data they hold on moi.

0900h begin nosing around on Guardian website, via Mark Thomas, via Fitwatch, via Information Commissioners Office, picking up a letter template on the way (pasted below) until
1100h realise I have to write a snail letter, keeping a copy in case the original goes "missing", to local police - in my case, Avon and Somerset. Go to their website

Navigation: Home page > Documents and information > Freedom of Information > How to obtain information

This is good. I can make a request online. Press link.
Pop up box says
"PLEASE NOTE: This form is not to be used for requesting personal information.
"If you wish to request any information held about you please click Cancel.
If you want to make a Freedom of Information Request then click OK."

So I click Cancel. Whereupon I go to Subject access (criminal convictions record).

I do not have a criminal conviction, so forget it. No short cuts, it's going to have to be a letter. Here is the template :

----------------------

Dear [Enter name],

I am writing to request all the information to which I am entitled to under section 7(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998. In order to assist you with this request, I am outlining some of the areas and occasions on which your organisation may have compiled information on me. As you will understand, this may not be a definitive list of such occasions.

[Give a description of how you have come into contact with the organisation - the more specific, the better]

I would be interested in any discussion or opinions expressed within your organisation of my person, reputation, character, history or behaviour, actual or perceived.

I should make it clear that this request should also cover all or any other information you may hold. I hope that you will be able to comprehensively search all your records. The definition of "personal data" under the Act covers both facts and opinions about myself as an individual, as well as information regarding the intentions of your organisation towards myself as an individual.

This request should therefore cover any internal external memos, emails, faxes and any other correspondence or readily accessible data held on computer by your organisation, which could be classified as 'personal data' under the 1998 Data Protection Act. This covers both manual and electronic data.

I enclose a photocopy of [proof of your address, such as gas/electricity/telephone bill] as confirmation of the above being my home address. I have also enclosed a photocopy of my passport [or similar, such as driving licence] and a recent photograph of myself to aid your identification.

I understand that under the act, I should be entitled to a response within 40 days. I would be grateful if you could confirm in writing that you have received this request. I look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

Yours,

-----------------

Now, before the Eeyore Tendency comes in with things like "You're wasting your time, its no good they won't give you their full record, we can never win against Europe,/Them/Vested Interests, let me say this :

I am not naive, nor am I stupid. I know they will not give me all the information, but I will get a bit. It is my innate curiosity, as a scientist, a campaigner, and an inventor. Anyway, if it's all so hopeless, why are you wasting time criticising peeps who are doing stuff?

Dialogue with an Officer Over Kettling &c.

Photograph: Chris Ison/PA; Thanks to Observer; link below.

[This is a response to a comment on the piece about Ian Tomlinson and the TSG, the latest Anonymous comment, as the Comment slot would not take it]

Good Consternoon, Aftable.

Thank you for taking the trouble to visit and for such an extensive comment. I will deal briefly with your substantive points, as I am short of time this morning.

Anon: This phrase concerns me 'Members of the unit would also be screened by being hooked up to a polygraph and exposed to images and key words to see if they respond to right wing triggers.' Your answer is to alter what is an apolitical organisation into one which is filled with the 'right' (or left) kind of people

RL: OK: provide left wing triggers too, in order to balance it up. Would that be acceptable to you?
Would you be prepared to place a £10 bet, proceeds to go to Practical Action, on which side will get more positives?

Anon: At the G20 people in some places were not behaving, and it was necessary to try to restore order.

RL: Events at the Climate Camp give you the Lie Direct.


Anon: It is not the fault of the police or any police tactic on the day that lead to violence, but the intent of some in the crowd.

RL: The police are beyond blame in any circumstances?

Anon: As to your criticism of containment as a tactic, how do you propose that we prevent the events of the may-day riots of around a decade ago. This tactic has proven highly effective at stopping this kind of disorder, if this is removed from the options it is only a short time till we see disorder like this again and we will be blamed for failing to keep control of them.

RL: Kettling/containment may be used as a response to real violent disorder, but must never again be used on peaceful demonstrators.

Anon: Granted the containment tactic will lead to some non violent people being detained, however this has been a tactic for around a decade and the vast majority of people are aware of it, yet choose to come to protests (generally the tactic is used at illegal protests as opposed to organised and lawfull protests).

RL: So any demo we choose to go to may result in being detained? We should bring tents, provisions and sleeping bags to all demos? Will you provide Portaloos?

RL: You have also mentioned 'agents provocateurs' please justify this, as this is not a tactic the police use, we attempt to minimise the use of force, not incite it. This is in my opinion an absolutely outrageous allegation and should be corrected immediately.

RL: The grossest example is with the Black Bloc in Geneva - admittedly, italian police, not peelers, but we have to make sure we don't even set off in the Italian direction.

I personally have been heckled by a pair of what I reasonably suppose to be agents provocateurs at an Aldermaston demo.

Craig Murray has an incident here.

And here's an Observer piece.


More evidence

UK agent provocateur search here, full of evidence.

Anon: You have also contradicted yourself, you have said how you are not 'anti-police' yet you repeatedly fail to show respect to the anonymous poster calling him 'Anonymofficer.'

RL: I have to differentiate the Anonymi who write in. I do not respect Anonymouses as much as people with an identity, just as you would tend to be suspicious of masked demonstrators.

Anon: And finally when you compare the tactics of the British police with our continental cousins, we do not use tear gas, we haven't used baton rounds. We very rarely even get our helmets on, even when under attack from missiles, for fear of 'provoking a riot.' So how do you propose we deal with the admittedly small corps of protesters intent on causing disruption?

RL: see above. You can defend yourselves against real trouble. Just please refrain from attacking and provoking non-violent demonstrators. Please, in all our interests - yours and ours. Remember that we are all there to uphold democratic values.

To finish on a note of agreement, I hope that we can both agree that it is regrettable that the media give more coverage to violent demos than to non-violent demos, which is itself an indirect incitement to riot.

No 10 G20 epetition response - more evidence of Govt brain fade

TSG officers using lethal intimidation and violence on a citizen














Proper police officers doing their duty at Glastonbury





There was a petition to No 10 Downing Street about the policing of the G20 Climate Camp

The Government response here begins"It is a long-standing tradition in this country that people are free to gather together and to demonstrate their views provided that they do so within the law. Equally, people have a right to be free to carry out their lawful business without fear of intimidation and violence."

The implication being that among the protesters are agents of intimidation and violence, and it is the duty of the police to protect the right of peeps to carry out their lawful &c.

The fact of the matter is that Ian Tomlinson was an ordinary citizen carrying out his lawful business of making his way home from work, and that he was exposed to intimidation and violence by an unnumbered police officer from the TSG which led to his death.

The lack of irony in Government using this phrase in these circumstances is truly terrifying, showing how far from reality the Government officials who draft up these statements are.

We should go back to Government and point this out, but today I am beginning to weary of the Sisyphean task of trying to speak truth to power. So I am going to do some woodwork, to make a natural bracket to hold the hose that conducts the rainwater from my water butt to do its lawful business on the garden. I just home someone from the TSG doesn't come and cut it - or, more to the point, cut my car's brakepipes.

BGG: Inspector should swear affidavit to banish doubt

I have just sent this to Chief Inspector Paul Richards, who was involved in bringing down the BGG.


Dear Chief Inspector Richards

The Big Green Gathering (BGG) is a long-established, peaceful and principled festival with a strong emphasis on sustainability. This year's Gathering has been cancelled, to the inconvenience and frustration of many would-be attendees, and to the loss of many in Somerset who would have profited from the Gathering.

I am aware of the objections put by the Licensing Authority. When looked at closely, each of these objections becomes rather insubstantial. There has been an increasing insistence by the Licensing Authority year on year on ever-more expensive security, despite the historic lack of criminal activity at the BGG. This leads some to entertain the notion that the authorities would rather that the BGG did not take place at all.

It is within this context that an allegation by one witness has gained currency. The allegation is that you personally admitted after a meeting that you had been under political pressure to block the BGG this year.

A correspondent tells me that you have denied making this statement. The witness nevertheless stands by his or her statement.

I suggest that the most effective way for you to terminate the perception that A&S police received some kind of political pressure is for you to issue an affidavit to the effect that you have never in any way, neither by hint, innuendo, instruction or command, from politicians whether elected members of Parliament, Ministers, Government officials, or any other agent of government, encountered any encouragement, incentive or pressure to block, hinder, or bring about an injunction on the BGG 2009.

In that way, the perception that this ban on the festival would be banished from all but the most unreasonable minds.

I an most grateful to you for considering this suggestion, and await your reply with interest.

Yours sincerely

Richard Lawson

BGG vs Mendacious DC: Pants on fire!!

Mendacious District Council quote fire concerns (see below) as the reason to close down the BGG.

This is an extract from the witness statement from Duncan Jon White, Station Manager Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service:



“and they had contracted ‘Midland Fire’ ( a private company who provides fire-fighting equipment) to carry out risk assessments for the venues. We would require ‘Midland Fire’ to demonstrate an acceptable level of competency and understanding of the current fire safety legislation in order for us to accept the findings of any risk assessments undertaken by them on behalf of the event organisers.”

“We (DSFRS) are of the opinion that even with a Fire Safety Management Strategy the level of understanding and competence of the Event Management Team in relation to fire safety isn’t of a sufficient standard to ensure public safety is maintained.”


Despite the fact that the licence for the Big Green Gathering was granted on 30th June and Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Services had made no representations to the Council on the suitability of Midland Fire Services before the granting of the licence, they came to the Multi Agency meeting held on 23rd July and made the above assertions.

The Big Green Gathering has employed Midland Fire Services for several years now and there have been no serious fire issues at the Big Green Gathering. There have never been any objections to Midland Fire Services prior to this and indeed Midland Fire Services are well known in the event industry. Previous officers in the county fire brigade have praised the efficiency and ability of Midland Fire.




Midland Fire

Experience and Expertise


We are specialists in the provision of fire protection and safety services for all types of outdoor events; large and small. We have over 10 years experience in providing such services, and have had the privilege to have been associated with many prestigious national events, major rock and music festivals. We have invested heavily in appropriate equipment and vehicles for the role.

Our Managing Director, Mr. Robin Crane is acknowledged as one of the leading specialists in event fire safety in the UK, and has written a large number of papers on the subject. He has been the site fire officer for one of Britain's leading rock festivals for 9 years, dealing with all aspects of fire safety and emergency response. He has also been invited to give presentations on special event fire safety to many organisations including other fire services.

* Fire Safety Consultancy

* Fire Risk Assessments

* Fire Extinguisher, Safety Sign and Fire Alarm hire

* Temporary Fire Alarm Systems

* Fire Extinguisher Sales and Maintenance

* Training Services

* Site Fire Officers and Trained Fire Fighters

* Fire and Rescue Standby Cover

* Water Bowser and Temporary Emergency Water Supply Containers

* Helicopter Support

* Health and Safety Services

Major Clients have included:

* VE Celebrations

* VJ Day Celebration

* The Queen's Silver Jubilee Celebrations

* The Royal Military Tattoo

* The Princes Trust Party in the Park

* The Royal Pageant of Horse

* The Reading Rock Festival 1994 to date

* The Leeds Rock Festival 1999 to date

* Virgin Music Festivals 1997 to date

* The WOMAD Festivals 1996 to date

* The London Fleadh 1994 to date

* The Homelands Music Festivals to date

* The Oasis Finsbury Park Concerts 2002

* The Mayor of London GLA Respect Festivals

* The London Mardi Gras

* The Essential Festivals

* The Big Green Gathering

* Truckfest and Truckfest South West

And Numerous Corporate and smaller events.


RL: so in conclusion Midland are competent, and the ban still looks like a stitch up for political purposes.

The BGG was a venue for the HorseDrawn community. People who are critical of their ethos (and, like the rest of us, they are not perfect) should look at this beautiful video - Live Before You Die.

More on the Big Green and the Blue Meany District Council

This is a document I received from one of the BGG collective. Mendacious District Council are in black, and the BGG comment is in green. It seems to be a different version of their FAQ posted lower down.

Who has cancelled the Big Green Gathering (BGG)?
The organisers of the BGG agreed to cancel it and handed their event licence back to the council.

There were four conditions on the injunction:

The weekend was spent trying to answer the proposed injunction. The injunction itself was founded upon an untrue assertion that BGG had "threatened" to put the event on in breach of its licence conditions. if the licence conditions were not capable of being met, BGG had no intention of continuing with the event - and it was a recognition that that was regrettably the position that caused BGG to surrender its' licence: It was not the threat of an injunction. The BGG were subject to further ‘threats’ on the Sunday morning, one of them being that the landowner would be added to the injuction. We respect the farmer and his family and we would not want any harm to be caused to them.

Why has the event been cancelled?
There were serious concerns about potential public safety and crime and disorder, which the organisers of the BGG seem to have recognised they could not address in time for the event.

the licence was surrendered :

(a) because the Highways authority were being intransigent and utterly unreasonable in not giving permission for the road closure;

(b) the Fire Authority were placing unnecessary hurdles in BGG's way - which were not deemed necessary at the last festival; nor at the time of the granting of the licence and

(c) valuable time was lost, which could have been spent trying to fulfil BGG's licence obligations, but instead was spent mounting an answer to a wholly misconceived application for an injunction.

Why did the council consider applying for an injunction?

The seriousness of the concerns meant that despite days of negotiations the organisers had still not complied with some aspects of their licence and other legal requirements connected to fire safety. This amounted to concerns that public safety could have been seriously undermined should the event take place in such circumstances. Therefore the council had no other option but to consider applying for an injunction, which if successful may have forced the event to shut down.

This is just not true. Midland Fire Services were contracted by Big Green Gathering for the event and they were performing fire service duties at Womad, which meant they could not be at the Multi Agency Meeting. Midland Fire Services were due to appear at the Big Green Gathering on the following Monday before the event and there had been no criticism of the fire plan until Thursday at the Multi Agency Meeting – just six days before the event was due to start.

When was the decision made to progress with an injunction?
During a meeting between the council and emergency services at 6.30pm on Friday (July 24). However, the injunction application was not due to submitted until Monday (July 27) which gave the organisers more opportunity to address their licensing issues.

The timing of the threat of an injunction was deliberately designed to make it almost impossible for BGG to get expert legal advice in the time available and that the decision to pursue an injunction must have been made way before Friday evening 24^th July – The actual injunction was received by email at 6.54p.m. the Council were sending the solicitor copies of all the statements, draft order, application at about 7 p.m. therefore no-one could have put that lot together in two minutes.

When was the council first made aware about concerns surrounding the licence?
On July 17 we became aware there were serious issues about the licence including the confirmation that an important security company involved with the event had withdrawn their services.

Another Security Firm, Coast to Coast, was employed and the director of Coast to Coast Security (who have incidentally provided services at the Bath & West Showground) attended the Multi Agency Meeting on 23^rd July.

What happened next?
Internal investigations at the council alongside the emergency services flagged up other areas of concern. The organisers of BGG were invited to attend a meeting at the council offices on July 22 to help resolve various issues. Some issues were resolved at that meeting, but a number of issues remained outstanding. The council and emergency services had already arranged to meet with the organisers the following day on-site to ensure the outstanding issues had been resolved.

Who would have granted the injunction?
The council had prepared a case to take to the High Court where a judge would have listened to both sides of the argument and made a decision. There is no guarantee the court would have agreed with the council, but the council felt so strongly about their concerns that it had no other option but prepare for an injunction.

The Council knew that a lack of road closure order would be a breach of the licence. The Judge is not obliged to listen to the BGG – the council were meant to prepare a brief showing both sides of the argument. That is why the BGG had to seek legal advice and the council had named individuals as well as the BGG on the licence therefore we were aware that individuals could be chased for enormous costs if the judge agreed with the Council. Our lawyer was convinced that we could win the arguments bar the road closure

Did the police pressurise the council into threatening an injunction?
No, the council works in partnership with many agencies. This decision was based on advice from emergency services including the police, ambulance, fire etc. Ultimately, as the licensing authority the council weighed up all the factors and risks and made the final decision.

The ambulance service were at the Multi Agency Meeting and did not appear on the injunction therefore there were no concerns about ambulance provision. From our meetings with the police and the council, it was apparent that the police were leading the discussion.

Was the threat of an injunction a political decision?
No, this was purely based on public safety and potential for crime and disorder.

We believe this was a political decision

Why wasn't this issued sorted out sooner?
The council and other agencies have been working closely with BGG since February this year on the licence application, which was finally granted. However, there were a number of requirements that had to be completed before the event. Some of these crucial elements had not been completed.

This could easily have been sorted out sooner and there was ample opportunity to complain at the licence hearing.

Does the council not feel that this is a safe and green festival?
This is not an issue about whether it has been safe and green, but is an issue as to whether the forthcoming event would have been safe based on the fact that certain requirements were not met.

This is a complete red herring.

BGG had provision for 2 doctors on site

BGG had provision for ambulance provision and Red Cross on site

BGG had provision for Festival Welfare Services on site

BGG had provision for fully qualified medical herbalists on site

BGG had provision for400 stewards on site

BGG had provision for external trained security on site

BGG had provision for internal trained security on site

BGG had provision for a helipad area on site

BGG had provision for trained road people on the perimeter and on site

BGG has an exemplary record on health and safety

BGG had provision for a Challenge 21 alcohol policy

BGG had provision for a lost kids and kids area, with a strong child protection policy in place

The Council and the police knew all this – it was in the licence

Does the council not support the ethos of events such as the BGG?
The issue here is not about the ethos or messages this event wants to send out but about ensuring public safety during the event.

See Above

Is the council not victimising this event and those that attend?
Since BGG came to this area a number of years ago it has had significant support from all agencies in planning and running this event. Over the past couple of weeks there has been significant ongoing discussion between organisers, the council and emergency services to try and resolve the licensing issues. The organisers signed up to legal commitments associated with the licence, some of which they failed to meet, and are bound by other legislation.

Did the council not want this event to go ahead from the beginning?
The council strives to ensure that any licence application is considered properly and fairly, but it also works closely with other agencies and organisers to attempt to organise safe and well run events. We realise the potential benefit that large events create for the area and local economy. In short the cancellation of this event creates many more issues and a heavier workload for the council than if it had gone ahead safely.

We believe that the Police did not want this to go ahead. The BGG brings in £2 million to the local economy. Traders, local producers, local contractors have all lost money. The BGG had already spent nearly £200,000 in infrastructure and other costs on the BGG.

Has the council gone health and safety mad?
No. However the council has a duty to protect the public from potential harm, and concerns existed due to certain plans not being in place. We realise that the cancellation of this event will be blamed on the council by some and has had a huge impact, however if we had done nothing and a serious incident had happened the council would have been also been blamed for not acting where concerns existed.
All events however well run do have a significant potential for crime and disorder issues, however part of our role is to minimise this effect through proper licensing. We were not satisfied that this event had addressed some of those issues.

We agree that protecting the public from harm is very important but we think it that lack of a road closure order is disproportionate to the action taken

Did we have an intention of creating financial difficulties for the BGG?
No. The council would never wish to see any financial difficulties affect any local event or businesses as one of our corporate goals is to support the local economy.
The effect is not just on the BGG but many local businesses that rely on income from the BGG in these difficult financial times.
Did the council create problems with the BGG signing up a security firm?
No, we simply needed assurance from the BGG that they had security arrangements in place.

This is [economical with the truth]* as both security contractors attended the multi agency meeting and gave assurances that they would fulfil their contracts.

How much crime and disorder results from the BGG?
This is a policing issue and the BGG spent significant time working with the police on this event.

Very little compared to the number of people on site. There was an increase in tent thefts in 2007 but BGG were providing campsite neighbourhood watch and lockers for peoples valuables


This year's Big Chill, Endorse-It In-Dorset, Stokes Bay Festival and next year's Sunrise 2010 festivals are all offering ticket swaps for those who have bought festival tickets for Big Green Gathering.

*RL amendment

Big Green Gathering - Read all about it

The echoes of the cancellation of the big green gathering rumble on. I am getting several emails a day, and trying to take some action by phoning Mendip District Council (I confess I do not have the courage to phone the police, after all, I have wife and children to think about).

I paste below some of the information that has come my way: First, my response to the Mendip Council's letters of justification; then their letters (I put it this way round because I know that life is much too short to read everything laid before us); next,a straw blowing in the political wind, and finally, an allegation about the part played by Stuart Security in the outrage.

We should always compare action taken by the Home Office (Now renamed the "Just-us Department") against the gold standard set in 2000 by the policing of the fuel protests, when lorry drivers closed down the oil refineries in protest at fuel prices. If that had been Greens doing that, we would have been beaten to a pulp, thrown in that state into police cells, and damned by every journalist in the land for recklessly endangering civilisation as we know it.

Being as how the protesters were Daily Mail readers who shared with the policemen and women a deep conviction of that oil is an infinite and side-effect free resource, the police put on their kid gloves before they dealt with the fuel protesters, and the Conservative Party gave them moral support. (Maverick that I am, I wanted the Greens to go out and mingle with the fuel protesters on the grounds that every day a fuel depot is closed down is a day that the planet's imminent fever is delayed).

But I digress. The police, no doubt smarting at the grief they are getting over their outrageous behaviour at the G20, want to get back at the hippies. Over the past years they have been rachetting up the demands and the costs of policing and security for the BGG. This year, in a fit of spite, they have succeeded in closing it.

Success comes in many forms. Some forms involve defeating your enemy, and this time the police and Mendip District Council have triumphed. But such triumphs involve creating a sense of resentment that will find its expression in other ways. Greens are non-violent, which is possibly one reason for the way that the State has been able to exclude us from the political and media process for so long, but we have many ways of exerting pressure on organisations that exhibit signs of gross stupidity when we are minded to do so.

The CEO of Mendip District Council is David Thomson. He was on holiday when the malicious decision to block the BGG was made, and his deputy Stuart Brown was in charge, but the way that these things work. David is your man to complain to.

david.thomson@mendip.gov.uk

Needless to say, Mendip is a Tory Council, and their leader is Cllr. Ken Maddocks.

--------------------

[xxxx]
Licensing Dept.
Mendip District Council,
Council Offices, Cannards Grave Road, Shepton Mallet,
Somerset, BA4 5BT
01749 648999
[email removed at boss' request]


Dear [name deleted]

Thank you for emailing me your material regarding the cancellation of the Big Green Gathering.

I would request some questions arising from your FAQs:

1. What historic public safety and crime and disorder occurred at past gatherings? I would like to have a detailed record of these.
2. For what reason did the "important security company" involved with the event withdraw their services?
3. What were the precise objections of the police, ambulance, and fire services.
4. Who is the "etc" referred to in the paragraph titled Did the police pressurise the council into threatening an injunction?
5. What precisely were the "requirements that had to be completed before the event?"
6. Please elucidate the logic in this sentence: "This is not an issue about whether it has been safe... but is an issue as to whether the forthcoming event would have been safe based on the fact that certain requirements were not met."
7. What exactly is the serious incident referred to in this sentence: "if we had done nothing and a serious incident had happened"
8. Re this paragraph:

"How much crime and disorder results from the BGG?
This is a policing issue and the BGG spent significant time working with the police on this event."

Is the Council aware that the cost of policing of football matches, outwith the cost of the the police working in the ground itself, is borne by the community charge? Does the same rule apply to the BGG?

I would appreciate a full and prompt answer to these queries, in view of the seriousness of the action that Mendip has taken, not just in terms of the inconvenience caused to potential attendees, not just in terms of any stresses caused by other local authorities who will host an unplanned gathering of potential attendees who seek alternative sites to gather, but also to the damage done to the ethos of civil liberty in our nation, as this action will be read in context with the brutal and anti-democratic actions of the police force at the Kingsnorth and G20 demonstrations.
Sincerely

Dr Richard Lawson

----------------------------------------------

The following is the statement and FAQ document being put out by Mendip DC in an effort to cut down on the work they have incurred as a result of their ill-considered action.

Following a statement issued by Mendip District Council on Sunday regarding the cancellation of the Big Green Gathering, the council would like to issue the following update:

Following a decision by the Big Green Gathering to cancel its event by surrendering the licence, this has meant that Mendip District Council has not needed to apply to the High Court for an injunction to stop the event.

The failure of the organisers to address a number of serious public safety issues meant that they had no other option but to cancel it themselves.

The fact is that organisers chose to surrender the licence before an application was made to the High Court.

The final decision to prepare legal papers for a High Court hearing was made on Friday evening (July 24), but a court application was not expected to be made until yesterday (Monday, July 27).

In addition to the several months of help and advice they had been given by both us and emergency services, the weekend provided even more opportunity for the organisers to fulfil their licence obligations. However, they handed their licence back to us on Sunday morning (July 26).

Many hours of council time have been committed to help make this event happen, but the lack of assurances from the organisers about the safety of their event were continually causing concern for the council and emergency services.

There has been an apparent lack of coordination in managing and meeting the obligations of the licence, and now the cancellation of this event creates many more issues and a heavier workload for the council and emergency services than if it had gone ahead safely. Mendip is a council which is recognised nationally with its partners for licensing large events.

The bottom line is we know about licensing festivals, and therefore would not have taken a decision to consider legal action lightly. Preparing for legal action is a last resort.

All festivals, no matter how big or small, must go through a strict licensing process with public safety and crime and disorder playing a major part in that process.

A number of untrue accusations are circulating throughout the media and on internet sites. These are without substance.

The council’s decision to pursue an injunction was a last resort. It only considered such action because the organisers did not fulfil their obligations under the licence.

The council recognises people’s frustrations but despite the best efforts of the council and emergency services, the event was cancelled by the organisers because the requirements of the licence were not met.

-----------------------------------------------

Following a number of calls and emails to the council regarding the cancellation of the Big Green Gathering, the following frequently asked questions have been compiled:

The seriousness of the concerns meant that despite days of negotiations the organisers had still not complied with some aspects of their licence and other legal requirements connected to fire safety. This amounted to concerns that public safety could have been seriously undermined should the event take place in such circumstances. Therefore the council had no other option but to consider applying for an injunction, which if successful may have forced the event to shut down.

When was the decision made to progress with an injunction?

During a meeting between the council and emergency services at 6.30pm on Friday (July 24). However, the injunction application was not due to submitted until Monday (July 27) which gave the organisers more opportunity to address their licensing issues.

When was the council first made aware about concerns surrounding the licence?

On July 17 we became aware there were serious issues about the licence including the confirmation that an important security company involved with the event had withdrawn their services.

What happened next?

Internal investigations at the council alongside the emergency services flagged up other areas of concern. The organisers of BGG were invited to attend a meeting at the council offices on July 22 to help resolve various issues. Some issues were resolved at that meeting, but a number of issues remained outstanding. The council and emergency services had already arranged to meet with the organisers the following day on-site to ensure the outstanding issues had been resolved.

Who would have granted the injunction?

The council had prepared a case to take to the High Court where a judge would have listened to both sides of the argument and made a decision. There is no guarantee the court would have agreed with the council, but the council felt so strongly about their concerns that it had no other option but prepare for an injunction.

Did the police pressurise the council into threatening an injunction?

No, the council works in partnership with many agencies. This decision was based on advice from emergency services including the police, ambulance, fire etc. Ultimately, as the licensing authority the council weighed up all the factors and risks and made the final decision.

Was the threat of an injunction a political decision?

No, this was purely based on public safety and potential for crime and disorder.

Why wasn’t this issued sorted out sooner?

The council and other agencies have been working closely with BGG since February this year on the licence application, which was finally granted. However, there were a number of requirements that had to be completed before the event. Some of these crucial elements had not been completed.

Does the council not feel that this is a safe and green festival?

This is not an issue about whether it has been safe and green, but is an issue as to whether the forthcoming event would have been safe based on the fact that certain requirements were not met.

Does the council not support the ethos of events such as the BGG?

The issue here is not about the ethos or messages this event wants to send out but about ensuring public safety during the event.

Is the council not victimising this event and those that attend?

Since BGG came to this area a number of years ago it has had significant support from all agencies in planning and running this event. Over the past couple of weeks there has been significant ongoing discussion between organisers, the council and emergency services to try and resolve the licensing issues. The organisers signed up to legal commitments associated with the licence, some of which they failed to meet, and are bound by other legislation.

Did the council not want this event to go ahead from the beginning?

The council strives to ensure that any licence application is considered properly and fairly, but it also works closely with other agencies and organisers to attempt to organise safe and well run events. We realise the potential benefit that large events create for the area and local economy. In short the cancellation of this event creates many more issues and a heavier workload for the council than if it had gone ahead safely.

Has the council gone health and safety mad?

No. However the council has a duty to protect the public from potential harm, and concerns existed due to certain plans not being in place. We realise that the cancellation of this event will be blamed on the council by some and has had a huge impact, however if we had done nothing and a serious incident had happened the council would have been also been blamed for not acting where concerns existed.

All events however well run do have a significant potential for crime and disorder issues, however part of our role is to minimise this effect through proper licensing. We were not satisfied that this event had addressed some of those issues.

Did we have an intention of creating financial difficulties for the BGG?

No. The council would never wish to see any financial difficulties affect any local event or businesses as one of our corporate goals is to support the local economy.

Did the council create problems with the BGG signing up a security firm?

No, we simply needed assurance from the BGG that they had security arrangements in place.

How much crime and disorder results from the BGG?

This is a policing issue and the BGG spent significant time working with the police on this event.

There is another FAQ document in circulation, with responses by one of the BGG team, pasted above in the blog entry 30 July.

-------------------------------------------------

Big Green Gathering Shut Down

“It’s political” Chief Superintendent tells BGG Director

Chief Superintendent Paul Richards admitted to a Big Green Gathering Director that the decision to shut down the Big Green Gathering was political and confirmed to the Chair of the Big Green Gathering that orders had come from the highest level.

During a meeting today between the police and directors of the Big Green Gathering, the superintendent said the decision to shut down the BGG was taken over a week ago, confirming the statement from the BGG lawyer that the ‘injunction was a red herring.’

Directors from the BGG are horrified at this partisan interpretation of licencing law. Big Green Gathering Chair Brig Oubridge said, “At the multi-agency meeting on Thursday 23^rd July, we were still negotiating with the police and the council under the genuine belief that things were progressing and we were continuing to spend money on infrastructure, wages and security. If they knew they were going to cancel the event, we can only conclude that this drive to increase expenditure appears to be a deliberate attempt to bankrupt the Big Green Gathering.

The injunction served on the Big Green Gathering was primarily addressing the fact that the Big Green Gathering did not obtain the necessary road closure despite the fact that the Highways Agency had previously indicated that this would be done.

The Big Green Gathering has been running an event since 1994 and never before has public safety been an issue. The BGG has an exemplary record on health and safety and crime levels have always been low for the number of people on site.

Despite the concerns over the behaviour of the Council and the Police, event organisers will work with them to ensure the safety of those at the premises and ensure that they leave the land in an orderly fashion. Brig concluded, “We are very aware of our responsibilities to those already on the site and very sad for all those who were coming to enjoy one of the most peaceful festivals in the UK.”

This email came from Holly de Sylva

------------------------------

Now, this one. I am not sure of the provenance, let's say "sources close to the BGG":

Mendip Council issued the licence on condition of a road closure. When that closure was applied for it was refused by the Highways Authority of the newly Conservative Somerset County Council.

Mendip Council also insisted on Stuart Security - or at very least it was always a lot easier to get a licence if you hired this particular firm. Stuart Security, worried that they weren't gonna get their money from the BGG were insisting being paid by a given date. The BGG didn't meet that deadline and then decided to hire a different security firm. Probably not the cleverest decision 2 weeks or so before the festie. Stuart Security went straight to the police and said something like

"These guys are dodgy. They've reneged on their contract with us. What can we get them on?"

Stuart Security apparently employ several members of this same police force as security officers.

------------------------------