Three news items occur in a period close to the end of August and the beginning of September 2011
1) a visit from the Brentwood Gazette published on the 31August.
2) A police Press conference about Hijacking the eviction.
3)A press conference at Dale farm (PA news agency)
**********************************************************************
Number 3....dated 2nd Sept.
Travellers and supporters fighting eviction from the U.K.'s largest illegal site in Essex have refuted claims that they have been infiltrated by trouble-making anarchists.
Speaking at a press conference the two groups presented a united front and said that they were committed to non violent resistance.
It followed reports (see 2)that up to 2,000 protestors (?)are set to descend on the site to clash with bailiffs and police.
comment:
I wonder where they got that idea from?
In the same report Resident Kathleen McCarthy said:
"These supporters are welcome here
and we remain determined to stay "
*****************************************************
Number 1)
The human shield supporters who introduced themselves back in April also featured in an Echo report dated 27/8/2011 under the headline...."Camp Constant takes root as Dale Farm eviction date looms.
******************************************************
Number2)
The detective who presided over the press conference early in September also appears later in the month (19th) under the headline "Police vow to keep the peace."
*****************************************************
Commentary/These news items seem to indicate that there was a feverish atmosphere and lots of rumours were being circulated which is why the folk in Dale Farm came to call a press conference to help clear the air.It does seem that most of the rumours originated in the extraordinary press conference (no.2)called by Essex Police early in the month which led to headlines about hijacking the forthcoming eviction.
If there had been any truth in these claims one would have expected that a roll call of people arrested at the time would have been substantial but most were charged with obstructing Bailiffs -something they professed that they were going to do for months and accept the consequences in order to demonstrate to the general public that this whole operation was a cruel and shameful exercise of power.
The perceived punishment protestors faced were being given Police Cautions.If they did not accept this they would have to go to court and be prosecuted by Basildon Council.Most rejected the cautions and opted to face court procedures where the police would have to prove any case made against them.
In the wake of many delays the Judiciary declared that these cases be dropped.It was not in the Public Interest to continue clogging up the courts.
When the Crown Prosecution Service,the Judiciary and even the police declared that pursuing the cases of obstruction through the Courts was no longer in the Public interest the Leader of Basildon council reluctantly gave way....
ReplyDeleteIT IS CLEARLY IN LINE WITH OUR DETERMINATION TO ENFORCE AND UPHOLD THE LAW -NUT TEMPERED WITH THE NEED TO MAKE SENSIBLE AND PRAGMATIC DECISIONS BASED ON THE SITUATION.
I WOULD SAY THEY WERE BRINGING THE LAW INTO DISREPUTE IN THE FIRST PLACE BY NOT RECOGNIZING THAT MOST LAWS AND STATUTES HAVE FLEXIBILITY BUILT INTO THEM WHICH ALLOWS FOR EXCEPTIONS ACCORDING TO CIRCUMSTANCES.
I am puzzled to find a literary model for the supreme leader of the Basildon Council.Here we see him as defender of Law and Order at odds with three pillars of the Establishment:the Judiciary,The Crown Prosecution Service and even his chums in the Constabulary.Is this a windmill too far for the crusading Don Quixote ? ...or is it Sancho Panza ?Surely not the El Cid of the estuary tribes ?
ReplyDelete