Parliament Protest

According to the BBC

Tuesday, 31 January 2006,

Religious hate bill goes to vote

Thousands of demonstrators are expected outside Parliament as MPs vote on plans to ban incitement to religious hatred.

Ministers want religious groups to have the same protection from hate crimes as racial groups.

The Racial and Religious Hatred Bill has undergone substantial changes in the Lords but the government hopes to push through a compromise amendment.

Critics claim the bill is drawn too widely and could stop free speech and unfairly target artists.

[...]

At a press conference on Monday, comedian Rowan Atkinson, who has been a prominent critic of the bill, said: "No one deserves a right to freedom from criticism."

Government attempts to include an offence of being "reckless" about stirring up hatred could affect performers, he added.

[...]

Labour backbencher Bob Marshall-Andrews said the legislation was "going to have a chilling effect on not just religion but on the whole spectrum of freedom of speech".

[...]

Liberal Democrat human rights spokesman Evan Harris said Tuesday's vote on the bill would be parliament's last chance to protect free speech.

'Freedom to ridicule'

"These freedoms to speak and to argue, to criticise and indeed to ridicule, once lost, are very rarely got back.

Shadow attorney general Dominic Grieve said his party would do "everything it can to work with others in parliament to remove the worst parts of the governments' proposals".

Under the proposed law the offence of inciting racial hatred would carry a maximum prison sentence of seven years.

Has prior written permission been applied for ? The event does not seem to be listed on the Metropolitan Police public order pages of road closures etc.

What conditions have been imposed ?

Is this one single demonstration ?

How are the Police meant to be able to tell if there are in fact several separate demonstrations or not ?

Remember that even inside the Palace of Westeminster, where people go to lobby their Members of Parliament, the public areas inside, are a "public place". according to the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 200 section 132

(b) "public place" means any highway or any place to which at the material time the public or any section of the public has access, on payment or otherwise, as of right or by virtue of express or implied permission,

Will people be arrested for simply lobbying their MPs in the traditional manner, wearing "political" clothing, or carrying campaign literature or banners ?

Posted by Peaceful Demonstrator at 2:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Why has the Home Office apparently not issued any "guidance" or instructions to the Metropolitan Police regarding the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act Designated Area around Parliament Square and beyond ?

Are the NuLabour politicians trying to blame the Metroplitan Police who have the thankless task of enforcing this incompetent and repressive legislation ?

According to this Parliamentary Written Answer:

Written answers Thursday, 19 January 2006

Home Department
Serious Organised Crime and Police Act

Robert Wilson (Reading East, Con):

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance his Department has issued to the police on the implementation of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 in the vicinity of Parliament since the recent arrest and conviction of Maya Anne Evans.

Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office):

No guidance has been issued on the provisions of the Serious Organised Crime Act dealing with Parliament Square. Home Office officials have worked closely with the Metropolitan police on the implementation of this legislation. We do not consider that written guidance to the Commissioner is necessary. However, we keep the need for guidance under review, in the light of operational experience.

Posted by Peaceful Demonstrator at 3:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It looks as if all 5 defendants in Monday's trial at Bow Street Magistrates' Court , who faced charges under the controversial Serious Organised Crime and Police Act section 132 relating to their arrests on August 7th 2005, have all been convicted, each of them being fined £50 and with a year's conditional discharge, and of course, a criminal record.

Thanks to Woody for the photo and a court report:

the judge seemed rather understanding to the plight of the defendants but was unable to aquit as she has to follow the law but she did seem to suggest that an appeal in a higher court was the way forward.

everyone charged was convicted and fined £50 with a year's conditional discharge so if they get in any trouble this charge will be taken into account and could be made more serious. previous cases have received higher fines so that could be seen as progress. although for the people involved, the criminal convictions will do more damage than the fine.

fine started at £150 but the defence was able to get it down due to the individual circumstances of the defendants: 2 students living on loans, 1 on disability benefit, 1 earning £14k etc..

the trial was scheduled for 4 days but the defence lawyer didn't put up any defence besides a written skeleton argument and saved considerable court time which also helped to get the fine reduced.

2 sessions, around 10 till around 1 and the sentencing at 3pm.

emma defended herself and called a few witnesses, brian haw and 2 coppers who both looked like army recruits speaking in robotic voices. the police testimony was rather amusing and possibly the highlight of an otherwise rather boring day in court. emma was kept to the individual charges in her questioning so couldn't really get brian talking about the background as much as she seemed to want to. in the end she adopted the other defendents argument and was sentenced with the rest.

the tea party gang were down as you can see in the pics in full clown outfits, chalking the pavement and generally mucking about. they left to try to get into parliament when the case was over.. not sure how much luck they had, fully made up clowns vs parliament security?

there were people taking notes in the courtroom who looked competent and 2 other camera's outside.. the courtroom was pretty full but everyone got a seat that wanted to be there.

i guesstimate 20 people excluding the 5 defendants.

UPDATE: Emma has published her legal argument on Human Rights Act grounds (.pdf)

UPDATE2: Emma writes:

I presented a 20 minute legal/politcial argument against conviction and against SOCPA more generally AS WELL AS adopt the legal argument of the other barrister - this meant that I did not have to repeat his arguments as well. I defended myself in order to be able to make additional arguments.

I was questioning my arresting officers in order to show that the way I had been arrested was inappropriate - as was the general policing of the event. I was not expecting that to influence the outcome of the trial.

Also,
None of us were arguing that we were not demonstrating or had not got permission so that is why the defence accepted the most of the prosecution case. The main argument from the defence was about the incompatibility of Section 132 of SOCPA with Articles 10 and 11 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Most/all of us will make an appeal.

Posted by Peaceful Demonstrator at 5:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Tim Ireland has an interesting posting on Bloggerheads, which suggests that he might also be at risk of being considered an "organiser" of a demonstration without prior written approval, by "beating the bounds" around the Desgnated Area.

The other interesting question that Tim raises is that of the exact extent of the Designated Area, given the imprecise wording of Statutory Instrument 2005 No. 1537 The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (Designated Area) Order 2005

(2) Subject to paragraph (3), references in paragraph (1) to a named street or other highway include the pavements adjoining that street or other highway on the extremity of the designated area.

(3) The pavements in Trafalgar Square are not included in the designated area."

It is this Statutory Instrument which is the legal definition of the extent of the Designated Area, and not any map produced by the Metropolitan Police

Tim suggests that the side roads which cross the boundary of the Designated Area described in the Statutory Instrument are also included:

Also, if you're thinking of standing in a side street, think again; the Act is worded so clumsily (or cleverly, depending on your point of view) that the exclusion zone can actually be interpreted to include the pavements on any adjoining highway at the extremity of the perimeter and/or that entire highway itself. The whole perimeter is - effectively - another city-block wider... potentially with tendrils extending far beyond that (though , as it says here, for no more than "one kilometre in a straight line from the point nearest to it in Parliament Square").

We do not quite agree with this, interpretation, but it did get us thinking that the typically Home Office "catch all" wording does actually mean that any of the "named streets" which the Statutory Instrument description of the extremity of the Designated Area mentions include the "pavements adjacent" as well.

This wording seems to apply to the entire pavement in the "named street", over its entire length, even the part of the street heading away from the direction of Parliament Sqiare, provided that no point is ""more than one kilometre in a straight line from the point nearest to it in Parliament Square"

There are several "named streets" which extend beyond the apparent line of the boundary of the Designated Area, but whose entire "adjacent pavements" could also be interpreted as being within the Designated Area.

If this were not so, then there would have been no need to specifically exempt the pavements of Trafalgar Square.

Refer to this map of the streets around Parliament Square

Some of these streets extend to a distance beyond "one kilometre in a straight line from the point nearest to it in Parliament Square"

1. "starting at the point where Hungerford Bridge crosses Victoria Embankment, "

   Victoria Embankment north of this point. About halfway between Cleopatra's Needle and Hungerford Bridge appears to be no more than "one kilometre in a straight line from the point nearest to it in Parliament Square"

2. "along Hungerford Bridge to the point where it crosses Belvedere Road, rightwards along Belvedere Road as far as Chicheley Street"

   Leftwards (i.e. north) along Belvedere Road underneath Westminster Bridge to the Hayward Gallery where it becomes Upper Ground

3. "leftwards along Chicheley Street as far as York Road, rightwards along York Road"

   Leftwards (i.e. north) along York Road as far as the IMax cinema roundabout i..e.as far as the corner with Concert Hall Approach at the north west of York Road and the corner with Mepham Street on the north east of York Road

4. "rightwards along York Road, crossing Westminster Bridge Road into Lambeth Palace Road,"

   Westminster Bridge Road stretches eastwards from the roundbout at the end of Westminster Bridge, for a considerable distance, past Lambeth North Tube Station to St. Georges Circus

   The 1 kilometre limit means that the St. Georges Circus end of Westminster Bridge Road is outside the Designated Area. However the western corner of the junction with Kennington Road and Wetminster Bridge Road is within, and perhaps also the pavement outside Lambeth North Tube Station itself (depending on from exactly where the 1km from Parliament Square is measured)

5. "over Lambeth Bridge, leftwards along Millbank as far as Thorney Street"

   Millbank extends southwards from Thorney Street towards Vauxhall Bridge. The 1 km from Parliament Square.would just encompasss Millbank pavements as far as the Tate Gallery.

6. "along Strutton Ground crossing over Victoria Street into Broadway"

   Victoria Street westwards as far as Ambrosden Avenue and the Roman Catholic Westminster Cathedral which appears to be not "more than one kilometre in a straight line from the point nearest to it in Parliament Square"

7. "along Queen Anne's Gate as far as Birdcage Walk, rightwards along Birdcage Walk as far as Horse Guards Road"

   Does Queen Anne's Gate actually connect with Birdcage Walk ?
   see the detailed Westminster Council planning applications map

   That would either make Queen Anne's Gate into an unusual "T shaped" road, or it would mean that there is a gap in the Designated Area boundary.

   Birdcage Walk westwards from Queen Anne's Gate towards Buckingham Palace just beyond Spur Road. The corner of Birdcage Walk and Buckingham Gate appears to be just a bit "more than one kilometre in a straight line from the point nearest to it in Parliament Square"

8. "along Horse Guards Road as far as the Mall, rightwards along the Mall"

   Leftwards along the Mall, westward towards Buckingham Palace from Horse Guards Road to Spur Road.
   

However, we think that Tim may not actually be charged with "Organising" his "beating the bounds" walk, around the apparent perimeter of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 Designated Area, if he was on his own.

132 (7) "(d) references to any person organising a demonstration do not include a person carrying on a demonstration by himself,"

However, obviously as an "organiser" of the Carol Service, that exemption would not apply.

It appears to us that under the wording of SOCPA, an "organiser" could be arrested, even if they have never actually set foot within the Designated Area.

Worryingly for anyone who has helped to publicise any of the events within any "public place" within the Desginated Area,

132 (7) "(c) references to any person organising a demonstration include a person participating in its organisation,"

Does that include journalists and the media who give advance notice of the event ?

Does that include us ?

Posted by Peaceful Demonstrator at 12:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

What about all the "organisers" of all the other "demonstrations" which have taken place in the Designated Area since 1st August 2005 ?

Press release from Justice Not Vengeance

FIRST CHARGE FOR 'ORGANISING' UNAUTHORISED DEMONSTRATION OPPOSITE DOWNING ST

Today, Thursday 19 January 2006, Milan Rai, 40, became the first person to be charged with organising an unauthorised demonstration in the vicinity of Parliament under the new Serious Organised Crime and Police Act. The maximum penalty for this charge is 51 weeks imprisonment.

Rai, author and activist with the anti-war group 'Justice Not Vengeance' (JNV), was arrested on 25 October last year for organising the demonstration that led to the conviction of Maya Evans, also of JNV (2).

He was not charged then. The Crown Prosecution Service have delayed a decision, citing problems with the CCTV footage of the incident. (Maya Evans was convicted without the benefit of such footage.)

Rai and Evans were arrested opposite Downing Street, while they held a two-person ceremony of remembrance, reading the names of Iraqi civilians and British soldiers who have died in the illegal occupation of Iraq (3).

Rai, who recently spent two weeks in Lewes prison for an anti-war protest, said: 'We should not have to ask permission to remember the dead. I am prepared to go to court and I am prepared to go to prison to oppose war and the erosion of our rights.'

ENDS

Notes:
1. Milan Rai is the author of 7/7: The London Bombings, Islam and the Iraq War (Pluto, due in April 2006)
2. Maya Evans was convicted on 7 December 2005 of taking part in an unauthorised demonstration in the Designated Area
3. See www.j-n-v.org_ for further details.

Posted by Peaceful Demonstrator at 2:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Home Office Minsiter Paul Goggins provided a Written Parliamentary Answer:

16 Jan 2006 : Column 1091W—continued

[...]

Parliament (Protests)

16. Mr. Carmichael: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been arrested for protesting within a mile of Parliament since 1 August 2005. [41784]

Paul Goggins: The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police has informed me that there have been 28 arrests for taking part in an unauthorised demonstration in the designated area since 1 August 2005.

Does this total include this mystery man who was one of the very first to be arrested on 1st August 2005 ?

Posted by Peaceful Demonstrator at 1:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Mark Barrett's case, stemming from his arrest at the August 28th 2005 Sunday Picnic in Parliament Square, was due to have been heard on Wednesday 17th January 2006.

However, due to some "emergency cases" which jumped into the Bow Street Magistrates' Court schedule, it now seems to have been postponed until Friday 31st March 2006 at 10am.

The 4 Police prosecution witnesses had objected to the Wednesday 17th January date as it clashed with their holidays, but they, like the defendant and his supporters had to sit around pointlessly all afternoon.

Read another fine court report by rikki

Was the charge actually that of organising a demonstration as had been threatened, or the less serious one of just participating in one ?

Posted by Peaceful Demonstrator at 1:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

These forthcoming trials are all of peaceful, non-violent people who have simply been exercising their fundamental human rights rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, in a traditional and time honoured location for political discussions, protests and demonstrations.

They posed no security threat whatsoever, and they did not disrupt the workings of Parliament in any way.

It does not matter whether you agree with any or all of their political or religous causes, this unjust law also applies to you as well.

By harassing the demonstrators through the legal system in this way, the Government is letting the enemies of democracy win a propaganda victory, by supressing spontaneous demonstrations in a way which btings the Government, the Police and the Court system into disrepute.

Please write to your Member of Parliament and urge them to repeal sections 132 to 138 of the Serious Organised Crime and Poluce Act 2005,, or at least, to vastly reduce the size of the Designated Area.

PRESS RELEASE Tuesday 17 January 2006

TRIAL FOR TAKING PART IN 'TEA PARTY' AS HEARINGS UNDER CONTROVERSIAL NEW ANTI-PROTEST LAW CONTINUE

WEDNESDAY 18 JANUARY (2pm), THURSDAY 19 JANUARY (10am), MONDAY 23 JANUARY (10am), BOW STREET MAGISTRATES COURT, LONDON.

The trial of a man who was taking part in a free speech 'tea party' on Parliament Square will take place on Wednesday. Mark Barrett was arrested on 28 August 2005 under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (SOCPA) for being part of an unauthorised 'demonstration' (despite the fact that this 'demonstration' was in fact a picnic with a group of friends). [A]

Since the new law was introduced there has been a weekly picnic and 'People's Commons' discussion in Parliament Square, both of which seek to challenge the protest exclusion zone and to highlight its implications for freedom of speech and association as enshrined into UK law in the Human Rights Act of 1998. [B]

Mark Barrett was arrested while sitting on the grass drinking tea and eating cake. Although, five other picnickers have been arrested (on a different occasion), charges against them were dropped. Supporters will join Mark outside the court on 18 January, for a reconstruction of the picnic at which he was arrested at 1.30pm.

Mark Barrett said, 'Our picnic is a creative response which challenges the unconstitutional SOCPA legislation, which arbitrarily criminalises any public behaviour and all spontaneous peaceful expression around Parliament: a huge and telling affront to our supposed democracy.'

On Thursday 19 January, Chris Coverdale, who was arrested in Parliament Square for holding an unauthorised demonstration against the occupation in Iraq, will also be on trial at Bow St Magistrates Court (at 10am). [C]

It now seems that this court appearance has been postponed until March 7th

On Monday 23 January, a further five people will be on trial at Bow St Magistrates Court at 10am. The five were arrested on 7 August at a demonstration in Parliament Square held specifically in defiance of the new restrictions on protest in the area. [D]

One of the five, Emma Sangster said, 'Protest is becoming increasingly prohibited and criminalized, yet it is through protest that the rights which we all take for granted, including freedom of speech and association, have been won over the centuries. Now, where it matters most, at the heart of power in this country, the police take the decision as to who may protest and how they can do it. Things are in a sorry state when the freedoms of speech and association are regulated by what amount to political decisions by the police.'

CONTACT Mark Barrett on 07854 390408 and Emma Sangster on 07791 486484
See www.parliamentprotest.org.uk and www.peopleincommon.org for more information

PHOTO OPPORTUNITY: Supporters will stage a reconstruction of the picnic at which Mark was arrested outside Bow Street Magistrates Court at 1.30 on Wednesday 18th January.

NOTES
[A] Under the new Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (April 2005) anyone wishing to demonstrate within 1km of Parliament must apply to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner at least 6 days in advance or, if not "reasonably practicable", 24 hours in advance. Permission must be granted but the Commissioner can impose draconian conditions on the protest including: when and where it can take place; how long it can last; how many people can attend; how much noise can be made; and the number and size of banners and placards used.

[B] For more details on the circumstances of Mark Barrett's arrest see
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/commons/story/0,9061,1559299,00.html

[C] See www.laaw.org for more details

[D] For more details of the demonstration in defiance of the new restrictions on protest around Parliament see
www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/08/320283.html?c=on#c126505

Posted by Peaceful Demonstrator at 2:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It seems that, according to rikki posting to IndyMedia:

the trial of four defendants accused of participating in an unauthorised demonstration in the designated area around parliament on the 1st august last summer ended today with all four being found guilty. full court report to follow shortly.

the four defendants were given small fines or conditional discharges, and told to pay small costs.

it is likely the defendants will appeal.

We await more details soon.

UPDATE: rikki has now published his

full court report on socpa trial and mysterious side issues

This contains the astonishing words by the Magistrate Nicholas Evans

the magistrate came back with a scenario of a peaceful and quiet demonstration which he then suggested became a hindrance to parliament when (AND I QUOTE HIM!!) "some rastafarians enter happy clapping mode" (i kid you not!!) - he asked whether it would be reasonable for the demo to suddenly become illegal for all participating in it?

As with the previous prosecution of Maya Evans, the Magistrate would not rule on the Human Rights Act implications of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act, taking the view that these would matters for a higher court to consider.

rikki's points about the non-arrest of the Stop the War Coalition organisers, the non-arrest of Jeremy Corbyn MP and about the first man who was actually arrested, but who seems to have disappeared, are also well made.

the next socpa case will be heard next week on the 18th at bow street, and 'picnicker mark' will be defending himself in court. after that, the arrestees from sunday 7th august will be in court from the 23rd. and on 22nd feb, lone demonstrator barbara tucker (who held up a banner 'i am not the serious organised criminal' outside parliament just before xmas) will appear in court. in the meantime, it is likely that today's defendants will be appealing against their convictions

Posted by Peaceful Demonstrator at 7:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The reports of yesterday's Bow Street Magistrates' Court trial of the 4 people facing charges under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 Section 132, for "demonstrating" without prior written permission within the Designated Area around Parliament Square have started to appear.

Compare and contrast the Metropolitan Police Sergeant's fears for the safety" of his men" claims, according to this BBC report with the Bloggerheads analysis of photos taken during this first set of arrests under the SOCPA Designated Area powers on 1at August 2005.

Also note the discrepancy regarding who was using a Loudspeaker - it was Jeremy Corbyn MP (Labour, Islington North), not the person who was arrested as "the focal point of the protest".

N.B. the Section 137 offence of using a Loudspeaker was not an arrestable one on 1st August 2005, but, now, after the commencement of SOCPA Section 110 this 1st January 2006, you can now be arrested for doing so.

According to this Indymedia report, it also appears that seven people were arrested on the 1st of August, but two people do not seem to have faced charges - who was the Somalian woman and the guy in the sunglasses ?

Posted by Peaceful Demonstrator at 1:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

One might have expected the first people to have been arrested and charged for alleged SOCPA section 132 offences, back on the 1st August 2005, to have been the first people
to be brought before a Magistrates court. For no logical reason, the Kafkaesque bureaucracy of the English judicial system managed to try and convict Maya Evans for such an offence before the first of the AUgust the 1st arrestees have faced a court, despite her ceremony at the Centoph having been held in October.

4 people appeared at Bow Street Magistrates Court yesterday,, according to The Guardian:

Mr Shaer, of Stockwell, south London; Mr Gallastegui, a coach driver from Harlesden, north-west London; Stephen Blum, 54, a teacher, from Battersea, south London; and Alwyn Simpson, 49, a local government officer from west London, face charges under the act. Mr Gallastegui is also charged with obstructing a police officer. The four deny the offences.

A fifth arrestee has had the charges dropped against her on the grounds of ill health.

The case will continue to be heard today Tuesday 1oth January 2006.

Another set of peaceful demonstrators are due to face court on January 19th.

Posted by Peaceful Demonstrator at 9:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

There is a report about the 7/7 remebrance ceremony at the Cenotaph on Saturday, with photos published by Indymedia: socpa legislation successfully challenged today by 7/7 remembrance ceremony

This poses the very pertinent question about the presence of the of the press and media on the likelyhood of being arrested or not, for exactly the same activities, within the Designated Area

a pattern is emerging that police only arrest people when they think that they can get away with it without much media attention.

when american anti-war activist cindy sheehan came over to meet brian haw in parliament square in december, police issued a socpa warning telling them to disperse, but as the deadline passed, a crowd of up to a hundred people staged a full-scale demonstration, marching up to the gates of downing street with banners and chants, and because of the sensitive nature of any arrests in the week maya evans had appeared all over the media, they backed down and allowed the protest to continue.

just before christmas, a 'carol-singing' congregation in parliament square listened and cheered while brian haw harangued the government, and a megaphone was briefly used illegally. the crowd numbered more than a hundred, and yet the police failed to investigate, and studiously ignored the throng rather than be reported by the attendant media as arresting carol-singers.

the previous day however, barbara tucker had been arrested and charged under the act for standing alone outside parliament with a placard stating "i am not the organised criminal". there were no press around on that occasion.

today, media attended the ceremony, and so despite the fact it was virtually a rerun of maya's offence (though with a larger crowd of 9 rather than 2!), the police watched but did not act. when questioned, one of them said they were just keeping an eye on things and said "we're not all bastards".

on the 18th an activist is due in court - he was attending a picnic at parliament square in august, and was nicked for wearing an 'a4' size placard around his neck stating 'protest my right'. and yet today, one of the participants was wearing the exact same banner in full view of the police but was not even warned let alone arrested. press included spanish tv, london tonight, channel 4, news of the world, and the evening standard. could this explain the police reticence? another banner asked for a public inquiry into the london bombings.

do you see a pattern?

so a word of advice if you want to demonstrate in the exclusion zone. make sure the press is there, and it seems you'll be immune. go alone, and face the consequences.

If thre risk of being arrested or not, for identical activities e.g. standing near the Cenotaph in Whitehall and posing no security threat whatsoever, depends , not on the safeguards to our freedoms and liberties as laid down in law, but on the decisions of public relations spin doctors, then what is the difference between NuLabour Britain and a banana republic or a tinpot dictatorship ?

Write to your Member of Parliaemnt urging them to repeal this offensive and repressive SOCPA section 132 to 138 legislation, which is bringing the law into disrepute and wasting police and court resources, without making the public any safer at all.

Posted by Peaceful Demonstrator at 9:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This Saturday 7th January 2006:

7/7 Anniversary Memorial Service.

This Saturday at 3pm there will be held an informal ceremony at the Cenotaph, near Downing Street on Whitehall for the half-year anniversary of the London bombings.

In remembrance of past, present and future acts of war, terror and aggression against people everywhere, we will share silent and spoken prayers for the coming year. And in solidarity with Maya Evans*, there will also be a public bell ringing and a reading of the names of all those who died on the London transport system on 7th July 2005.

* The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 [also known as SOCPA] makes it a criminal offence to demonstrate without police control within 1km of Westminster. On 9th December 2005 Maya became the first person to be convicted under this awful legislation. She and the writer Milan Rai were arrested for ringing bells and reading aloud the names of Iraq war victims immediately outside Downing Street.

Please come and join us for our 7/7 Anniversary Memorial Service. This Saturday 7th January 2006, 3pm at the Cenotaph, Whitehall, Westminster.

For more info about the service please call Mark on 0785 439 0408

Service organised by individual members of www.peopleincommon.org in liason with others.

UPDATE: Saturday 7th January 2006 would have been the 28th birthday of Jean Charles de Menezes the innocent Brazilian who was shot dead at Stockwell Tube station on 22nd Jujly 2005.

New Scotland Yardis is also just within the Designated Area, so it will be intersting to see if any of Jean Charles de Menezes family and supporters are arrested under SOCPA.

Posted by Peaceful Demonstrator at 4:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)