Apparently, the absurd policing at Kingsnorth might cost up to £3 million. £3 million, that is, to intimidate protestors, assault liberty and break their own rules beyond repair. Who’d like to start the list of where that money could’ve been better spent?

Boris Johnson scrapped two more projects today - one on the grounds it might result in the accumulation of chewing gum. On his halting of plans to pedestrianise Parliament Square, he said:

“This scheme would have turned a green glade of heroes into a vast, blasted, chewing-gummed piazza.

“There is absolutely no sense in Londoners paying £18m from their already stretched transport budget in order to reduce capacity on London’s roads.”

Note BoJo’s strange lack of faith in humanity, whom he feels would be unable to respect his heroes. He damns the plan for possibly creating a, “vast, blasted piazza”; and yet fails to note that, in its present state, it’s virtually impossible to cross the Square in less than 10 minutes on foot. It’s left a vast, blasted, choked field surrounded by busy roads. Hardly a, “green glade,” then.

Perhaps more crucially, the Mayor’s scaled back plans for 60 hydrogen vehicles designed to act as prototypes for sustainable public transport. It’s a strange move for a man who claims to be committed to cleaner fuel and to the environment in general; those buses could represent an important step. Boris can ride his bicycle all he likes while the press watch - but he can’t expect to be taken seriously on green issues if he just ignores them.

The Police surrounding Kingsnorth Climate Camp were issued a booklet entitled “Policing Protest” by the sinister sounding National Extremism Tactical Coordination Unit. Indymedia brings us a dropped booklet - and very englightening it is too. The pamphlet is very vague in places, with key terms defining what precisely constitutes an offence left to individual judgement and whatever’s considered, “ordinary,” by the office (see p7).

So, are there any dangerous extremists at Kingsnorth? I think it’s time to consult the booklet. Section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 states:

An offence is committed:

I if a person uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or

II Distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked.

So, in short - if an individual frightens another individual with the threat of violence. Did that happen at Kingsnorth? Why yes, comrades. You see that snarling man in the centre wearing a fluorescent jacket brandishing what looks to be a blunt object, as though he’d do violence against those unarmed citizens; he looks to be just such a dangerous extremist. And don’t those unarmed civilians look scared?

Note also that provocation to unlawful violence is an offence - one the Police already stand accused of. Baton charges and full riot gear aren’t usually deployed against pacifists and vegans. It’s uneccessary, and smacks of an attempt to intimidate said vegans. So when those baton charges are carried out, they become offences under Section 4A of the same Act:

An offence is committed if with intent to cause a person intentional harassment, alarm or distress, a person:

I uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
II displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

Not looking good, is it? Similar offences took place under Section 5 of the Public Order Act. Unless, of course, smashing the windows of supply vans and the confiscation of materials essential to basic hygiene isn’t an attempt to harrass protestors.

Perhaps the Kent Police will fare better under Section 12 of the Public Order Act, which deals with public processions. It states that conditions may be imposed on activity if it might result in:

I serious public disorder

II serious damage to property

III serious disruption to the life of the community

IV the purpose of procession is the intimidation of others with a view to compelling them not to do an act they have a right to do, or to do an act they have a right not to do.

Let’s treat the columns of police vans that made their way to Kingsnorth as a procession. They’re guilty of all four offences, I’m afraid, thus:

I Baton charges rather count, I think.

II See exhibit A; note also the theft of soap, crayons, board games, essential building materials, etc.

III We can treat the Climate Camp as a community; it has its own food supplies, kitchens, and even neighbourhoods. The Police have surrounded this community, search anyone who wants to enter it, cut off its food supplies and stolen numerous personal possessions (see II). This seems likely to have disrupted the community.

IV Peaceful Protest is a right guaranteed under the Human Rights Act. The protestors haven’t yet perpetrated violence, so can be assumed to be peaceful; they’ve thus a legal right to do as they have. The Police have interrupted their protest, and so compelled them not to do an act they have a right to do.

Section 14 concerns spontaeneous protest, so we’ll let them off here; the Police have clearly planned this for a while.

We move onto the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 now. Section 42 concerns harrassment of the individual within their home. It states directions may be given should:

I that person is present outside or in the vicinity of any premises that are used by any individual ( “the resident”) as his dwelling;
II that individual believes, on reasonable grounds, that that person is present there for the purpose (by his presence or otherwise) of representing to the resident or another individual (whether or not one who uses the premises as his dwelling), or of persuading the resident or such another individual that he should not do something that he is entitled or required to do or
that he should do something that he is not under any obligation to do;
III that individual also believes, on reasonable grounds, that the presence of that person (either alone or together with that of any other persons who are also present) amounts to, or is likely to result in, the harassment of the resident; or is likely to cause alarm or distress to the resident.

We’ve already defined the Climate Camp as a settlement; it follows that tents and shelters contained in that settlement should be defined as (temporary) dwellings. The Police have entered into that settlement, patrolled outside the dwellings within, and taken possessions from those dwellings. That smacks of harrassment - and so, another offence against their own rules.

There follow a long string of inapplicable sections, before we reach Section 68 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. It states an offence is committed if an individual trespasses and, “does anything to intimidate persons on that land,” to deter them from any legal activity. So - how does entry into a private tent and taking soap, with the immediate intent to prevent protestors from engaging in the legal activity of washing, and the wider intent of making legal protest less attractive, sound? Like an offence, that’s what.

The section regarding Offence by Harrassment is obscured. But, given that we’ve already shown harrassment has taken place, we can assume the police are culpable here, too. Likewise Section 4 of the Protection from Harrassment Act 1997, which makes it an offence to, “pursue a course of conduct, ” which, “causes fear,” that violence will be used against them; that Baton Charges were threatened and occured incriminates the Police here. Preventing food supplies reaching the camp almost certainly required a public highway to be obscured; an offence under Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980.

So, that makes the Police at Kingsnorth guilty (at least) of offences under the Public Order Act 1986; the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001; the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994; the Protection from Harrassment Act 1997 and the Highways Act 1980. Quite a charge sheet. But where will we keep them all while they’re on trial?

The Police can only justify their existence when they protect liberty. And yet, at Kingsnorth, they’ve demonstrably abused the law - and broken it on numerous occasions. The Climate Camp protestors have exercised their democratic right to protest, and the police have tried to stop them. In a more firebrand mood (or when drunk), I’d denounce them - and their masters at Westminster - as enemies of popular freedoms who fully deserve to be torn apart in a wild and bloody revolution as the people reclaim their rights. As it is, I’ll merely shake my head and say that I really do worry…

(Hat-tips for evidence: Indymedia, JimJay, Coventry Greens, Stuart Jeffrey)

Caroline Lucas on police behaviour at Kingsnorth Climate Camp:

Sitting in a teepee in the peaceful Kent countryside, surrounded by campaigners from across the UK mulling over the future of renewable energy and swapping vegan cake recipes, you could be forgiven for temporarily forgetting the outside world and its many woes. Perhaps, then, we must also forgive the police at the climate camp in Kingsnorth this week for losing their grip on reality, as the sense of perspective which should have underpinned their policing strategy for the event flew straight out of the canvas window.

The police – primarily from the local Medway force but Metropolitan officers are also in evidence – have raided the camp twice now, confiscating items that included crayons, disabled access ramps, marker pens, banners, radios for relaying fire and medical emergency information, the nuts and bolts holding toilet cubicles together and blackboard paint. They have found it necessary to use pepper spray without provocation, and several campers have been arrested and bailed off the site for “obstructing” increasingly aggressive police officers.

Everyone who enters the site is being searched. Police officers are taking anything away that “could be used for illegal activity”, with efforts being made to strip protesters of such hardcore weapons of choice as bits of carpet, biodegradable soap and toilet paper. In the absence of any serious threat, the police clearly found it necessary to justify their presence with an unprovoked attack on personal hygiene.

Perhaps the government would like to explain how this isn’t an abuse of that anti-terrorist legislation they claimed would never be abused? The protestors at Kingsnorth are demonstratably peaceful; they’re serving food based in the notion that killing anything is an abhorronce, and want to educate.

There was some talk of trying to disrupt productions at Kingsnorth, yes. But that, surely, would justify (in terms of the law, rather than what’s necessarily right) little more than a police cordon around the power-station? Enough to protect the site, but allow those protestors within the camp their democratic right to protest. And yet the police have turned out in full riot gear, regularly harrassed the protestors, and confiscated private property which clearly presents no danger whatsoever; they claim wax crayons are accessories to terrorism. Given the pacific nature of the camp, that simply reeks of an attempt at intimidation and political policing.

Which must, of course, be resisted at every level.

EDIT: Via Stuart Jeffrey comes the manual issued to police officers at the Camp. I wonder how many of those charges they’re guilty of themselves…

I despair, sometimes:

They miss the point somewhat. The focus being on saving the planet, rather than lining their pockets…

(Hat-Tip: Stuart Jeffrey)

Adrian Ramsay launched his campaign for Deputy-Leadership of the Green Party today. His message seems simple - he’s a hugely competent activist and campaigner, at the heart of the Green movement.

The campaign website very much sets the tone. It’s slick and to the point; why Adrian’s standing, the reasons to vote for him, and how to help are set out plainly and within easy reach. To summarise each campaign plank in turn, Adrian puts his core values thus:

action as part of a movement

social justice and affordability

action on climate change

anti-privatisation

fair trade

fair treatment of animals and wildlife

So, that’s an outwardly focused, leftish, green approach with a hint of internationalism. Any Green that could fault those as broad principles has perhaps joined the wrong party. He’s not solely focused on Westminster - the desire to have, “more contact,” with, “campaign groups and trade unions,” rather puts paid to that suggestion - and he wants to use that contact to move towards truly Green ends.

Not that Adrian would damage electoral success - far from it. As leader of the first Green Opposition on Norwich Council, he could easily lay claim to teaching the Party how to win council seats. And he does so for this campaign:

Adrian has been a councillor since he was 21, and is now Leader of the largest group of Green Party Councillors in the country.

Adrian was Election Campaign Manager when Norwich Green Party gained its first council seats in 2002. Since then, Adrian has played a key role in increasing Green representation on Norwich City Council from two to thirteen Councillors, as well as adding two Green County Councillors to represent the city at County level.

In the 2008 elections, the Green Party became the second party in Norwich (just two seats behind Labour). Adrian is the first Green Party Councillor to become the Leader of the Opposition on a local authority.

Rather impressive, I feel. Ramsay managed to make the Norwich Greens the most electorally successful local party in the country - and without compromising any level of radicalism. He’s worked with trade unions against privatisation, helped make Norwich a Fair Trade city, and moved to save local services. All of which sounds pleasantly close to his stated values.

This ability - to deliver electoral and practical success without compromising his principles - forms a key plank of his platform. There’s much on his experience, and how it’d provide a great boost in his target constituency of Norwich South. This, for example:

Our message is an urgent one. We need to be effective and organised as a party to get Greens elected to all levels of Government so we can champion and implement Green solutions to the world’s problems. Too often local parties are left to reinvent the wheel as they work to get Greens elected to their local council. Efforts are being made to spread best practice but we need to do more to help local parties and to communicate how our current success stories have come about and how Green Councillors have made a real impact at grassroots level. As a party we also need to be focused on securing the breakthrough into Westminster so ensure we are taken seriously as a national party. Winning in our three target General Election constituencies is the best way to build the party’s profile and credibility across the country. As Deputy Leader, I can bring experience of winning elections to the national party - and holding the position of Deputy Leader would add credibility to our campaign in the Norwich South target constituency and help bring that crucial breakthrough into Westminster a step closer.

So - he wants to build effective parties, at a local and national level. Sounds just about right for a Deputy-Leader. Perhaps more interesting, though, is his vision for the party:

There were understandably strong views on both sides of the leadership referendum debate. I believe that, as Green Party members, far more unites us than divides us. We need to have leadership at a national level that is inclusive, accountable and effective. At a local level I work hard to involve councillors and party members in the running of Norwich Green Party. As Deputy Leader I would see myself as playing a key role as part of a group, working alongside all members of the party Executive to make the party more effective and successful.

We also need to put in place the values and proposals that the two sides of the referendum debate shared. For example, I would support the introduction of a Green Shadow Cabinet, as proposed by Green Empowerment, so that we can have the benefit of a range of specialist speakers, accountable to the party, and so we are not reliant on two leadership figures for all the media coverage and speaking opportunities!

Adrian clearly looks to be pitching himself as a unity candidate between the two factions that emerged last year over leadership. A wise move, I feel, both for the election and if he wins; a Deputy Leader hoping to build the party into an effective force needs to hold appeal for all concerned. If that makes him a middle-of-the-road candidate - then it may well work.

Adrian Ramsay has constructed a virtually watertight campaign. Reaching out to the whole party, and grounding his appeal in an undeniable experience and talent, he presents an effective vision; the party’s radical politics, delivered by a credible and capable organisation. Anyone who does run against him will need to present a hugely attractive challenge - and probably from the outfield (Step forth, Comrade Wall?). Because otherwise, he seems to be just what the Green Party needs.

A recent quote from a member of cabinet struck me as particularly enraging:

British businesses, and ultimately the British people, would not forgive us if we shirked our responsibility to do what’s right because we wanted an easy ride from green lobby groups.

At the time I was unaware of the identity of the man, but should probably have guessed. It was none other than John Hutton, the arch-Blairite who earlier this year made a speech concerning the rich that set my teeth grinding. Like a true Tory he declared that:

Rather than questioning whether huge salaries are morally justified, we should celebrate the fact that people can be enormously successful in this country… Rather than placing a cap on that success, we should be questioning why it is not available to more people

Because, of course, the cause could not possibly be that if there is a finite amount of money a few people hoarding enough for entire cities to live lifetimes off the consequence is horrifying inequity. How foolish of anyone to suggest as much. And if a couple of connected city boys can make a killing then that’s worth a party.

His latest piece of nonsense is just as repugnant and left me struggling to comprehend the idiocy in much the same way: the green lobby groups he cites are interested in averting the end of mankind as a viable species on a planetary level. In terms of “Responsibility to do what’s right” you would struggle to do much better. He continues, however:

we will continue to show leadership and commitment in advancing the sustainable aviation agenda. We will help make flying greener rather than restricting people’s opportunities to fly altogether.

which is nothing short of baffling. I should clarify: at present the only approach to flying which can make things “greener” is for it to happen less. The damage inflicted upon the environment by releasing vast quantities of CO2 directly into the skies is massive and unless there are less planes doing as much we will continue to have a problem. If Hutton wishes to see less damage inflicted through producing alternative measures then he should announce policies funding the massive costs which any such development would entail. As far as I can tell all that he has done is announce an airport will be expanded.

Furthermore this is clearly not a matter of “restricting” anything. The argument is not over whether or not existing runways should be closed down, it is over whether a new runway should be opened. Therefore Hutton is arguing in entirely the wrong direction: he is not arguing against restriction but in favour of expansion. The two are obviously distinct but with this underhand sophistry he pretends to be acting against forces demanding regression, while in fact making the case for a destructive development.

The reality of the matter is that the effects of the expansion upon both the local and global environment would clearly be disastrous. By focusing upon the fact that there are groups which will give the government a hard time over policies which will inflict such damage rather than the perfectly legitimate arguments which they make Hutton performs a neat but dishonest sidestep. This is, of course, a totally short term approach to the economy: in a globalised economy the impact of large tracts of the planet vanishing beneath the sea and vast areas becoming uninhabitable owing to heat would ineluctably impact Britain. Unpleasant though it undoubtedly is emissions of carbon dioxide must be reduced, both here and everywhere.

If India and China produced as much of the stuff per head as Britain does the planet would be rapidly rendered uninhabitable, and if we do not reduce emissions then what grounds will we have for expecting them to restrain themselves? Hutton, however, does not feel that we should establish ourselves as the example which we could easily become. He is of the view that the British economy here and now, or perhaps for the next few years, is all that matters and that what occurs in a few decades is not a concern. Just as well, given that the consequences of environmental disregard will be economic disintegration.

And this is with restraining myself from even mentioning the narrow-minded callousness of focusing solely upon the “British economy” and disregarding the truly vast amount of suffering caused to vulnerable areas of the planet (Bangladesh, the warmest parts of Africa, need I continue?) by climate change.

What with his calling Labour the “Natural party of business” and vigorous defence of the 10p tax rate debarcle is there any option but to consider this foul man the epitome of all that’s wrong with the New Labour project?

Close your eyes and picture a scene. A group of people stand around an almost-fresh grave. The grave is almost a year old- the final resting place of a teenager. Today would have been his 18th birthday. So, today, his family and friends have taken a few hours out of their lives to gather at his graveside. They share memories and music- and each of them releases a single red balloon. You see, that was his favourite colour.

They’ve all got a million different thoughts racing through their heads as, slowly, they raise their heads and stare at the sky. The loving parents are thinking of their baby who never grew up. The sister thinks of the brother who won’t be there to see her grow up. The friends are thinking of the empty seat in their classroom where he should have been sitting. The love of his life is crying for all the things that they will never get to do together. The teacher smiles as she remembers her star student. Each of them has lost something irreplaceable. True friendship, true love, and a treasured son and brother.

Now picture the smile of a woman in love as she stares at a sky filled with very similar balloons. These are pink. They spell out ‘the question.’ Her eyes fill with happy tears as she throws her arms around the love of her life in response.

The problem here is that recent reports suggest that the Marine Conservation Society is now trying to persuade local authorities and organisers of balloon releases to do something different. Why? Well, they are arguing that balloon releases are harmful to birds and wildlife, which can die if they eat balloons. They’re also arguing that helium balloons create a pollution which is wrong and needless. So, recent news reports have suggested, some local authorities are planning to ban balloon releases.

The MCS believe that people need to think about where the balloons they release may end up. They are animal lovers, trying to protect animals and the environment, so I can see their point. But I wish they would spare a thought for the countless groups who gather at gravesides with coloured balloons to release as a loving tribute to someone special. I with they could spare a thought for the love and care that goes into organising a balloon release, for the significance of the colours chosen.

I can tell you from experience that the last thing on anyone’s mind at a funeral, memorial service or death anniversary is a dead turtle or bird. If a woman was asked what she was thinking at the sight of the balloons that spelt out her proposal, she would, no doubt, say that she was already planning her wedding.

To me, banning balloon releases would be as good as banning loving tributes or romantic proposals. I have a question for the MCS. Who’s going to miss a dead bird? Not even half of the happy guests at that woman’s wedding. Who’s going to miss a dead turtle? Not half as many people as those who are still missing the dead teenage boy.

It is, apparently, a free country. So go ahead. Pay tribute. Propose. Celebrate. Symbolise. Set those balloons free! It’s a beautiful sight. Not that I expect, or even want, every one of you to agree with me. But in my mind, people come first. The choice, though, is yours. Would you rather protect a turtle, or pay tribute to a teenager?

Sarah usually blogs at Remembering the Ability in DisAbility.

Vegetarianism gains more ground.

Rumbold makes half of a fair point over at Pickled Politics. To whit:

Let us assume for the moment that green taxes are effective, in that they will lead to people being in a more environmentally-friendly manner. These taxes are thus desirable, so long as the overall tax burden does not rise. There is a simple enough way to convince people that green taxes are not just another means by which the government raises revenue; every pound raised by green taxes should be matched in cuts on income tax, by raising the threshold at which people start to pay income tax. Moreover, the tax on oil should be reclassified, so that 25% of the tax counts as a green tax. This 25% would then be spent on the basic state pension.

He’s right; people will become suspicious of “green” taxes when they’re self-evidently being used as stealth taxes. Where I disagree is on what to do with the money.

Environmental taxes should change behaviour. However, they can’t do that simply by disincentivising this behaviour: they need to provide alternatives. Green life needs to become more attractive economically than whatever took place before. It’s possibly possible (oops…) to do this entirely through the tax system, simply making environmentally damaging behaviour so expensive as to be unviable.

But that’s hardly fair, as the alternative could remain expensive. Here, rising fuel costs make cars less and less attractive to drivers - but if public transport stays as stupidly expensive as it is, then people will stick with them. So the state needs to provide those alternatives, or face a cynical public on green taxes and inaction on green issues.

The answer is to use the money from green taxes for green purposes. The millions from fuel duty should subsidise public transport and so make it easier for people to abandon their cars. Public scepticism would fall as everyone felt the benefits. And, most importantly of all, the issues which the taxes existed for would be addressed - which isn’t certain with matching tax cuts elsewhere.

Rumbold rightly argues that green taxes will lose public support if they’re actually stealth taxes. But they won’t work if the state doesn’t move beyond intervention. People will grumble about the green tax, gratefully take the income tax cut - and move on. Environmental issues remain unchallenged. In the case of rising fuel duties, many might well use the money saved on income tax to pay for exactly the same amount of newly-expensive fuel as before. Nothing would change.

That’s why green government needs green spending just as much as it needs green taxes. It’s not just about making certain behaviour unattractive. It’s about making the alternatives attractive as well. People will have no reason to change beyond what they hear in the news, otherwise - and they’ve been hearing that for 30 years. The most logical way of making that change is to use the money from making the former behaviour unattractive to make the other behaviour attractive. Surely?

If there’s any money over once that change happens, then great - bring on the tax cuts. But until then, it’s tax and spend we need, not tax and balance.