Most recent story at top of page

GEORGE FOX 6 TRIAL: VICE-CHANCELLOR'S TRESPASS CASE TO GO TO APPEAL
30/9/05: Human Rights organisations expressed growing unease as a verdict of guilty was returned today after a trial which has deeply embarrassed Lancaster University. Six students and graduates received two-year Conditional Discharges for aggravated trespass at a Corporate Venturing conference they demonstrated at twelve months ago. They are determined to appeal on freedom of speech grounds.
The court saw a video of protesters, dubbed the 'George Fox Six', entering a Corporate Venturing conference and addressing the audience for about 30 seconds and handing out leaflets before being manhandled out without resistance by catering assistants, wherupon they blew whistles in protest.
After failing to prove that the protesters had intended to
intimidate or obstruct, the prosecution case rested on the submission that the protesters had intended to disrupt the conference, despite testimony supported by video evidence that they simply wanted to address the audience, hand out leaflets and then leave, allowing the conference to continue. After four days of evidence the Judge's decision rested on an amended dictionary definition of the word "disrupt."
In a prepared statement University Secretary Fiona Aitkin said after the hearing, "What the students did went beyond peaceful protest."
Human Rights Organisation Liberty said they were "very concerned at this result. The right to peaceful protest is fundamental to our democracy, as is freedom of speech. Both have been under attack recently, not least at the New Labour Convention, and we fear verdicts such as this will only hasten their demise."
District Judge Peter Ward described the protesters' actions as disruptive and a "nuisance" but ruled that they had not intended to intimidate anyone or to stop the conference from happening, contrary to the prosecution's submission. He also accepted that the views of the protesters were "sincere" and concerned "issues of of serious concern to a lot of people in the academic world."
In sentencing the protesters to conditional discharge, he said that "In a free and democratic society people who organise conferences should be able to put up with people who disrupt conferences. I accept that the whole thing lasted a short time and that the rest of the conference proceeded."
The six are supported by Liberty, the National Union of Students, the Association of University Teachers, the Council for Academic Freedom and Standards, Lancaster Trades Union Congress, Scientists for Global Responsibility and countless other academics, student unions and members of the public, who turned out today to show their support as the six left the court, surrounded by national and local media.
The NUS said in a statement: "It is clear the Orwellian nightmare is alive in Lancaster, and we at NUS cannot express our anger at this decision strongly enough. Freedom of speech is under attack wherever you go, but nowhere more so than university campuses, which have always been hotbeds of political activity and radical thought.
"This attempt by Lancaster University to argue that students committed trespass on their own campus when voicing a legitimate protest was always absolutely absurd. Students are watching the creeping privatisation of their education. This case today is simply a blatant attempt to intimidate students into not expressing their growing dissent and it WILL NOT WORK."
In a joint statement, the George Fox Six said: "We remain proud of what we did and we still believe that the moral victory is ours. As far as we and our supporters are concerned, it has been the university's ethics that have been on trial, and they have been found guilty."
A packed courtroom heard how the University already has a close relationship with controversial arms manufacturer BAE Systems and is actively pursuing closer research ties with industry without proper consultation and debate. Speaking on the witness stand, Rhiannon Westphal described how people were "afraid to speak out because their jobs are on the line." She explained that she simply wanted to talk to academics who would be at the conference to raise ethical issues and to "stimulate a wider debate in the University."
Lancaster University Students Union said it is "dismayed with the outcome of the George Fox Six case. Students are not
trespassers on their own university grounds and they have the right to voice alternative and critical views. We are taught this in our degrees and the result of the case shows that Lancaster University is not willing to put into practice what it teaches. Forfeiting its rich history of radical student protest, Lancaster University has silenced student voices on its campus. Students everywhere have a right to protest and LUSU will continue to speak out against this terrible miscarriage of justice."
Scientists for Global Responsibility said 'We are deeply disappointed with this verdict. Universities should be first in line in standing up for the freedom to protest, but today Lancaster University has ensured it is in the forefront of undermining this right. This is a sad day for freedom speech in general and academic freedom in particular.'
The six said today: "We will fight this decision in the appeal courts, but we also wish to challenge the law which was used against us. We believe that if we can be found guilty for what we did then the very right of protest itself is thrown into doubt. The prosecutions have been built on the case that people have a right not to be protested at - a position that is logically incompatible with the right to protest."
An irony not lost on the court was the fact that the university building used for the conference, which involved a number of companies condemned internationally for their involvement in human rights abuses and unethical practices, was named after George Fox, a devout and committed pacifist and founder of the Society of Friends. Indeed the university colours include Quaker Grey and in previous times the University boasted of its proud tradition of dissent and free-thinking. Local Quakers have written to object to the current usage of the building named after their founder, and it is likely that the name will now have to be changed.
It is rumoured that the University is planning to auction off the right to choose the building's new name.
Read earlier story below
• You can find out more about the George Fox 6 and about the issues and the companies involved in the conference at their supporters' website at:
http://www.free-webspace.biz/GeorgeFox/

COUNTY'S TRANSPORT PLANS CONDEMNED
30/9/05: The County Council is considering changes to the way Lancaster's roads and other transport networks are maintained -- but their plans have been blasted from all sides. City Council leader Ian Barker has urged Lancashire County Council to continue the Lancashire Highways Partnership, which it has decided in principle to end and to transfer all work on the Lancaster and Morecambe's roads, footpaths and cycleways to the County Council. The Highways Partnership would be replaced by so-called 'locals', which the County claims is a way to get decision-making down to local levels. In fact, it does the total reverse taking power away from districts and back to county and then out to some quasi-democratic body that ill-fits local decision-making.
Opponents to the County's plans, which affect all areas of Lancashire, say the proposals will seriously undermine the ability to deal with the effects of storms and floods, carry out highways deep cleansing and improvements such as those carried out in Hope Street, Lancaster -- and to provide an effective integrated service for roads, pavements and cyclepaths.
Virtual-Lancaster has learnt that the County's proposal has been criticised by the Chief Executives and Leaders of virtually all Lancashire's district councils, irrespective of the political party in control.
An independent report on the 'locals' where it has been trialled also absolutely lambasted the project.
The County Council's cabinet will meet on 5 October to make a final decision on the proposed changes to the Partnership.
In a letter to County Councillor Tony Martin, Councillor Ian Barker has argued that service to the residents of the district will suffer if the planned changes go ahead.
"Lancaster City Council puts in extra resources to enhance what the County can do in our district," says Ian. "Those resources have enabled us to do more work on local road safety schemes, such as 20mph zones and associated traffic calming; on residents parking schemes; on back street improvements; and on provision of cycle tracks. These are issues that are important to local residents. It would be difficult to commission such work if our highways engineering section were transferred wholesale to the County Council. There is a real danger that schemes that local people want will be threatened by the ending of the Lancashire Highways Partnership."
"There is also a threat to the joined up provision of services. Recently in Lancaster we have been trying a scheme in which we clear all cars from a street with the co-operation of residents, so that highway repairs and cleansing operations can be carried out at the same time. We want to do more of this. If the County Council removes the highway function from City Contract Services, it will be impossible to extend this initiative further."
"At times of emergency, when there is sea or river flooding or when trees are blown down by storms, it helps to have highways and grounds maintenance staff working together in a single organisation. They are locally based, they can just get on with the job and we can worry about where the responsibilities lie afterwards. Splitting responsibilities between County and City will make us less effective, not more." "The Lancashire Highways Partnership has only been going for two and a half years. In that time it has succeeded in improving standards. We want to work together with the County Council to provide a quality highways service that is responsive to local needs. To abandon the partnership now is a backward, not a forward step. Even at this late stage, I hope the County Cabinet will think again."

BUSES SERVICES SLASHED
30/9/05: 122 Lancashire schoolchildren may lose their school bus, if County Council proposals to cut school bus services by nearly half a million pounds are agreed next week.
Green County Councillor Chris Coates has reacted angrily to proposals by Lancashire County to make £470,000 of cuts to bus services across the county. This includes £130,000 of cuts to school buses - which will leave 122 children without a school bus service.
In addition to school bus cuts the County is also proposing to make £340,000 worth of cuts to Lancashire's rural bus services.
"The County Council has got its priorities totally wrong," says Chris, who blames bus deregulation for the cuts, first introduced by the Tories in the 1980s. "At the same time as they are proposing spending tens of millions on bypasses, they are denying Lancashire's school kids a place on their school bus. We should be encouraging more school busses - not cutting them."
"It seems to me that these cuts are also linked to bus de-regulation. The bus companies can make millions running busses on the busy routes - but they don't want to spend money in the rural areas."
The County Council's cabinet will meet on 5 October to make a final decision on the proposed cuts.

UNIVERSITY VICE-CHANCELLOR ON TRIAL FOR TRESPASS AT UNIVERSITY
30/9/05: Day 4 of the George Fox 6 Trial at Lancaster Magistrates Court took an interesting turn as defending solicitor Gavin Haigh made a case that the organisers of the Corporate Venturing Conference that was the subject of student protest at the University last year was held unlawfully. He argued that as the organisers had failed to fulfil the conditions laid down in the University Code of Practice that the conference itself was held unlawfully under the provisions of the Education Act No2 and therefore those attending it were in effect trespassing - the organisers, speakers and the delegates.
"And indeed" added District Judge Peter Ward, helpfully, "that would mean the Vice Chancellor (a speaker at the event) would have been trespassing."
The court had heard testimony earlier from University staff and then Student Union President Mathew Freeman that the organisers of the event had not submitted an appropriate application to hold the conference to the Registrar of Meetings although they had notified him that the event was to take place.
Despite, argued Mr Haigh, that the conference was of a controversial nature, covering as it did the issue of commercialisation of academic research, a hotly debated issue throughout academe and involving as it did many corporations whose military or vivisection activities had been the subject of previous protest, and also that it was a non-routine event event, being the first of its kind, and also that it involved a national figure, Government Minister Lord Sainsbury, the organisers had not notified the Registrar of these issues, as was their duty under the University Code of Practice for ensuring Freedom of Speech.
Had they done so, he added, it would have been incumbent upon him to convene a meeting of the Standing Committee for Meetings - which includes representatives of the faculty, the student union and the university. They between them would then have been able to determine the best way to ensure that all interested parties would have had an opportunity to express their views at the conference. However as Mathew Freeman had testified, such a meeting had never been convened during his term of office, and Registrar Anthony Evans had testified that in the 10 years that he had held the post he had never convened such a meeting.
Mr Haigh noted that according to the Code of Practice, where the organisers of a meeting were in breach of the Code of Practice then the University must refuse the use of University premises for the event, as such a meeting would be unlawful under the terms of the Education Act No2.
Those participating in such an unlawful meeting were therefore trespassing.
Breach of the Code of Practice by event organisers is considered to be a disciplinary offence. However it became increasing unclear during the case who the actual organisers of the meeting were. Management School Director of External Relations and Corporate Communications Prof Crawley claimed only the slightest involvement in organising the event. Both he and Hilary Barraclough of the University's Conference Office, whose duties were described as taking care of the logistical side of the event, testified that they were unaware of the relevant sections of the Code of Practice.
The court is due to reconvene tomorrow at 2pm to hear District Judge Peter Ward's verdict on the case.
Read earlier story below
• You can find out more about the George Fox 6 and about the issues and the companies involved in the conference at their supporters' website at:
http://www.free-webspace.biz/GeorgeFox/

TORY PARKING PERMITS CLAIMS SLAMMED
29/9/05: Labour councillors have hit back angrily at Tory claims that votes cast by Labour, Independent and Green members at the September meeting of the City Council's Overview and Scrutiny Committee were potentially devastating to local businesses in Poulton and elsewhere in the district.
In a letter to the local press, Tory Councillor Mace stated that a proposal arising from the work of the Poulton Area Renewal Task Group, that could have led to business parking permits for use in residents parking zones was rejected by four votes to three with one abstention.
"Those proprietors and employees of local businesses, their clients, customers and suppliers, and the members of community organisations, recreational organisations, religious bodies, charities and social clubs who contacted me on the subject of parking restrictions in Poulton now know where responsibility lies for parking problems," claims Councillor Mace. "It's not the first time that failure to listen to local interests has made a mockery of the Council's consultation processes.
"In this case the failure extended to two of the City Councillors for Poulton ward."
But Labour councillors have rejected his claims. "This is nonsense," Council leader Ian Barker told Virtual-Lancaster. "The Poulton Task Group and Overview and Scrutiny don't make decisions as such and are not subject to party Whip. In this case there will be a report to Cabinet.
"There are problems with businesses who want to park their vehicles in the home zone," he continued, "but the parking restrictions are those requested by residents and are part of an attempt to make this a much more desirable place to live".
"I was present at the Overview and Scrutiny meeting where I gave an overview on the Poulton Home zone scheme," says Councillor Janice Hanson. "The scheme itself has been a great success - it's designed to make a better place to live for local residents.
"As part of the consultation, residents wanted the scheme to allow them to park near their homes. It is also designed so children can play a bit safer in the streets knowing there are no speeding cars going through. It is a place where the residents take priority. Poulton councillors at the meeting agreed with that because they know how much safer, cleaner and more secure the area is.
"The point Councillor Mace is continually trying to make is that businesses inside the zone should also get business permits much like resident's permits. For the council to introduce such business permits would result in a change of policy as our policy on parking is residents first, shoppers and visitors second and commuters third.
"Councillor Mace's views fly in the face of what local residents want, what local councillors actually based in the ward want and has proved so successful," feels Hanson. "Yet he still wants he believes is right and because he didn't get the support he is now upset. Maybe instead of lambasting other political parties he should actually start by having a go at his own. After all, it was the Conservatives who 'took their ball home' by withdrawing from Overview and Scrutiny causing Roger Mace to lose his chairmanship of the body he professes to value."

GEORGE FOX 6 ON TRIAL: DAY 3
28/9/05: Day 3 of the trial of 6 students being prosecuted for their protest at a Corporate Venturing Conference hosted by Lancaster University in September 2004 featured testimony from 3 of the defendents. Matthew Wilson, a student of Ethics & Moral Philosophy at St Martin's College had already recounted how he asked keynote speaker Lord Sainsbury, government Science Minister how he was able to reconcile his role as regulater of the bio-tech industry with the fact that he had made £20 million from his investments in that industry.
He explained that he believed he had a moral and legal right to protest at the university's attemps to develop links with corporations he considered unethical, such as BAE Systems, which he said had sold 15 Hawk jets to the Indonesian government, which had used them in killing half a million East Timorese. They had also sold 8,000 electric stun batons to Saudi Arabia, an act condemned by Amnesty International.
He went on to mention that Shell, also represented at the conference, had admitted funding soldiers who had killed Nigerian environmental protesters.
Defendent Keith Richardson, a geography PhD student and assistant part time teacher at the University also referred to Shell's role in oppressing the Ogone people of Nigeria. He listed Dupont, another company represented at the confererence, developers of Agent Orange, and to Proctor & Gamble, whose research involved placing rabbits in restraining devices and injecting detergent into their eyes.
He said, "I could not believe this conference was taking place - that you could have so many unethical companies all together in one place at the same time, all being welcomed by the University onto campus and it was my duty to say something about it."
Mr Richardson described the concerns widely prevailing in the academic world regarding the commercialisation of research. He said "Researchers ought to be able to carry out their research without looking over their shoulders at who is funding their research and what results they want."
He was also concerned that researchers were prevented from publishing the results of their research by funding corporations.
Mathew Wilson earlier noted that corporate funding might skew the choices of students in choosing particular fields of study, for example, because of pharmaceutical funding interests, they might be more inclined to research high profit western consumer drugs such as viagra and botox, rather than drugs to treat diseases that kill people in developing countries.
The court also heard testimony from defendent Rachel Jackson, an undergraduate philosophy student at the university who described how she had been carried out of the conference against her will by two men who she did not know and who she said had not identified themselves or spoken to her. Earlier in the case 2 members of the University catering staff had testified to having carried her out.
On being asked all the defendents repeatedly stated that it had not been their intention to disrupt the conference, to which they believed they had a right of access, but to take the opportunity to address it briefly and voice their concerns about its function. Mr Wilson said that the right of protest is a virtue, and that it may involve some inconvenience to others and that this is tolerated as a trade-off for living in a society where there is a right of freedom of speech.
The trial continues tomorrow at 10am. Given that an average day in court appears to consist of a 10.30am start, a 3.30pm finish, an hour and a half for lunch and two 20 minute breaks it seems likely that it will not finish until Friday.
Read earlier story below
• You can find out more about the George Fox 6 and about the issues and the companies involved in the conference at their supporters' website at:
http://www.free-webspace.biz/GeorgeFox/

RLI BED CUTS ON WAY?
28/9/05: Morecambe Bay Hospitals Trust is considering cutting the number of beds at Royal Lancaster Infirmary -- but claims the plans will not damage the quality of patient care in the local area.
The Trust operates hospitals in north Lancashire and south Cumbria, and is considering proposals to cut up to 130 beds
in bed numbers to tackle financial problems.
£ 500,000 is also being slashed from management costs, part of a package expected to deliver savings of around £2.5m detailed in a financial recovery plan titled "Delivering High Quality Care Within Available Resources" at a four-hour board meeting at Furness General Hospital on Monday.
Various cost cutting measures are expected to deliver savings of around £2.5m. The bed cuts will affect Royal Lancaster Infirmary, Furness General Hospital and Westmorland General Hospital.
The North West Evening Mail reported yesterday that the trust must make savings of £8m -- which represents its fortnightly spend -- if it is to meet its statutory duty to break even by the end of the financial year next April.
Trust chief executive Ian Cumming said: "If we carry on doing everything we’re doing now without any changes we’ll overspend by £6m to £8m."
But chief operating officer Kevin McGee says patients would not be affected by the cuts, according to a report on BBC News.

HAVE YOUR SAY DAY
28/9/05: Lancaster District Partnership For Older People is holding a "Have Your Say Day" to launch the organisation on Friday 7 October. The event runs from 10.00am to 4.00pm The Platform on Morecambe Promenade. The Partnership has been set up for people over 55 interested in taking part in shaping the future for Older Age groups within the Lancaster District. The event includes a free lunch, Guest Speakers, Workshops, Stands, Raffles & The BBC Radio Lancashire Bus To receive your free invitation or express an interest in taking part, contact: Sarah Latham or Naomi Adam on 01524 585594 or 01524 585653 Places are limited so don't delay. Transport or care may be organised if needed.

GEORGE FOX 6 ON TRIAL
26/9/05 (updated 27/9/05): Lancaster University's court case against the George Fox 6 began today at Lancaster Magistrate's Court. However instead of being heard by magistrates District Judge Peter Ward is hearing the case, who was somewhat put out to discover that all his copies of the defence's paperwork and submissions had been misplaced by the court administrative system. After some delay while hurried photocopying took place and supporters of the six waved their banners outside at police cameramen, the case finally got underway.
The 6 - Rachel Jackson, Joanne Moodie, Anthony Ayre, Keith Richardson, Matthew Wilson and Rhiannon Westphal - all deny charges of aggravated trespass in respect of their allegedly entering and protesting against a Corporate Venturing conference being hosted by the University in September 2004. Prosecuting Barrister Neil Addison is arguing that this protest disrupted the meeting and prevented the speakers involved from being heard - a Freedom of Speech issue. A video of the protest was shown at the hearing.
Speakers at the conference included Lord Sainsbury, Science Minister and a keen sponsor of GM agriculture and Damien McDonald, Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
Prosecution witnesses Prof. Richard Crawley of the Management School, Hilary Barraclough of the University Conference Office and Anthony Evans, Head of University Security and also Meetings Registrar explained that the purpose of the conference was to broker links between the large corporations representated such as BAE Systems, Shell, Unilever; Dupont, Proctor & Gamble, Intel and BOC and University departments in the hope of furthering mutual interests and generating income streams via research funding - in essence, as the defence solicitor Gavin Haigh put it, the commercialisation of the University.
The defence are arguing that the conference was organised in breach of the University's Code of Practice relating to meetings and speakers of a controversial nature and consequently unlawful under the Education Act No2.
Fears that there would be insufficient seating for spectators in the courtroom proved unfounded and those interested in seeing the case unfold should not be disappointed if they turn up tomorrow at 10.00am. The trial is expected to go on until Thursday.
The Guardian reports that in a joint statement, David Smith, president of the Association of University Teachers at the university, and Dwayne Branch, its student union president, said they were "steadfastly opposed" to using criminal law against peaceful protestors.
"We feel their use in this case has far wider implications, not just for Lancaster University, but for the right of peaceful demonstrators (students or academics) everywhere to stage legitimate protests without being threatened with police involvement, ASBOs and custodial sentences," it read.
The university claims it is committed to free speech, but in a statement stated: "The university will not tolerate criminal activity on campus or harassment and intimidation of members of staff."
• You can find out more about the George Fox 6 and about the issues and the companies involved in the conference at their supporters' website at:
http://www.free-webspace.biz/GeorgeFox/

CYCLE PATH GATE RE-OPENED
26/9/05: Virgin Trains has announced that the gate from Lancaster's Platform 1 to the cycle path has been re-opened after protest from cyclists and local Greens.
The gate has been closed for over three weeks causing considerable inconvenience to cyclists and others, even though Virgin Trains won an award for integrating cycle with train use by building it.
"I'm absolutely delighted that Virgin trains have accepted the case for re-opening this gate," says Councillor John Whitelegg, who spearheaded the campaign to get this gate re-opened. "We can now get back to the important business of making sure that rail use and cycling both get the boost they deserve and support each other every step of the way."
The gate connects the station directly with a new cycle path across Giant Axe Field, a path paid for with public money. Virgin Trains won an award for its integrated bike-train policy in linking the bike path with the station -- then closed and padlocked it citing terrorism risks and then bike theft. This closure caused annoyance and inconvenience and came at a time when government was encouraging bike use -- and just as Lancaster was bidding for £1 million to improve bike facilities!

see previous stories