Guy Aitchison's blog

...protesting peacefully about climate change for example. Yep - more anti-terror idiocy, this time courtesy of the UK border police, who stopped climate campaigner Chris Kitchen from travelling to Copenhagen and interviewed him along with afellow climate activist under Section 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Paul Lewis has the full story in the Guardian.

This, then, is how the police are using their databases of activists - to cut back their freedom of movement and pre-emptively stop them from taking part in protests. How much longer are we going to stand for this rubbish? The Tories are talking the talk when it comes to certain parts of the "database state" and the "surveillance state". But what have they got to say about the freedom to protest and the ways in which protesters are being surveilled and tracked by sinsister Forward Intelligence Teams who collect profiles to be stored (probably illegally) on police databases along with criminals? Nothing, so far as I can tell.

Perhaps they think the freedom to protest is only of concern to left-wing trouble-makers. They couldn't be more wrong. Think, for example, of the rough treatment dished out to Countryside Alliance protesters at a rally in 2004. The right to protest is a fundamental democratic right common to us all and it must be protected.

I haven't heard anything on this coming from the Tories, despite the high profile of the issue since the G20. Until they start talking about reversing some of the draconian incursions on the right to protest their latest pose as the party of civil liberties looks very superficial indeed.

As I'm sure you know by now Trafigura has dropped the gagging order against the Guardian which prevented the paper from reporting a parliamentary question mentioning the company, a freedom supposedly guaranteed by the 1688 Bill of Rights.

Trafigura and law firm Carter Ruck scored a spectacular PR own goal - within minutes of the gagging story appearing on the Guardian website last night it was all over Twitter and the blogosphere. As I went to bed at around 1am last night the words "trafigura" "carter ruck" "dumping" and "toxic waste" were being tweeted over and over by Twitter users, including me, to spread the word and raise awareness by getting the topic trending on Twitter. By the time Stephen Fry tweeted this morning dubbing the injunction "a barbaric assault on free speech" hundreds of thousands of people who had never heard of Trafigura before knew all about their evil actions dumping toxic waste off the Ivory Coast. 

Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger was preparing to challenge the injunction in court at 2pm when the news arrived that Trafigura had buckled in the face of the barrage of a negative online publicity. At around 12.50pm he tweeted "Victory! #CarterRuck caves-in. No #Guardian court hearing. Media can now report Paul Farrelly's PQ about #Trafigura".

You can listen to Rusbridger discuss the whole affair in this Guardain podcast - it seems that the Guardian was under a "super-injunction", which prevented it both from reporting on Trafigura and from mentioning the fact it was under an injunction. When it learnt that a parliamentary question about the company was going to be asked by Paul Farrelly MP, it contacted Carter Ruck who happily provided the public cause the paper was after by replying that the question was covered by the injunction and the Guardian would be in contempt of the court's order in reporting it.

Although I've not yet had this confirmed, I'd be very surprised if the Guardian didn't work with Farrelly, who is a vocal critic of our libel laws, on this. Indeed, as Sarah Ditum writes, the whole course of events from the carefully coded initial Guardian non-coverage of the story, to the Farrelly question, to Rusbridger and his colleagues' hyper-active tweeting, suggests that the Guardian "gamed" Trafigura and Carter-Ruck with a brilliantly executed counter-punch.   

If you haven't checked out The Third Estate already then I recommend you do. Named after the definitive tract for French bourgeois revolutionaries, by Abbe Sieyes, it's a multi-author blog ran by a group of recently graduated lefties. They post regularly on a wide variety of topics and also publish reviews and interviews with note-worthy politicos. In the short time it's been around The Third Estate has climbed to the upper echelon's of Iain Dale's Total Politics blog list. Do take a look. I have a guest post up there today which is a kind of post-conference overview of the parties and the prospects for democratic reform. 

This letter appeared in Saturday's Guardian:

MPs returning to Parliament this week might like to think that the fury they faced earlier in the year due to the expenses scandal is now behind them. Yet the storm was as great as it was because of an underlying sense of alienation that has been developing for years.

Some of the ideas which emerged during the conference season aimed at closing this gulf between the political class and the public have been positive contributions, but none of them amount to the sort of fundamental change which we now desperately need. In particular, while Gordon Brown's support for holding a referendum on electoral reform is a welcome shift, the promise of a vote on an electoral system hand picked by the Prime Minister will be greeted by much cynicism.

The UK needs an independent citizens' convention to ensure that such decisions cannot be skewed by political self-interest. It is too late to complete such a convention before the general election, but it could be legislated for and begin its work in a matter of weeks. Its work could then progress regardless of which party goes on to form the next government.

There's lots to be said about David Cameron's conference speech, which is being treated as his last before power, but I'll concentrate on the democracy and civil liberties stuff.

Once again with Cameron I was left with the strong impression that his fine words and rhetoric aren't backed up by a genuine commitment to reform. Listening to his speech, my over-riding sense was one of continuity, of witnessing the latest incarnation of "Blatcherite" populism, as David Marquand calls it.

There is a clear hunger in the country for a new kind of politics and a reversal of the illiberal centralising tendencies of the last twelve years. Cameron shows signs of understanding this but his carefully chosen words stop short of anything that would fundamentally re-balance power in favour of the citizen.  

What now of Cameron's promise to give "power to the powerless" which he made in a speech at the height of the expenses crisis described by Anthony at the time as a "masterclass in rhetoric"? He's had all summer to think how it can be done.

In a penetrating article for the Guardian's Comment is Free before the conference, Peter Facey, of Unlock Democracy pointed out that Cameron's fine words on reform have not been matched by action and challenged the Conservative leader to engage constructively with Power2010.

After a rather dull and uninspiring Guardian fringe event on "fixing politics", at which the most radical constitutional idea was for more elected mayors, I didn't hold out much hope for the Conservative Action on Electoral Reform debate on democracy this afternoon. But it turned out to be a lively affair and good fun.

We were packed into a small room which CAER had clearly been given in the expectation that electoral reform doesn't really do it for Conservatives, but in the end it was standing room only.

Jonathan Isaby of Conservative Home chaired a panel which included Dan Hannan MEP, Peter Facey of Unlock Democracy, shadow justice minister Eleanor Laing and Lewis Baston, Keith Best and Ken Ritchie from the Electoral Reform Society. They were the "dragons", there to comment on the different ideas for reform that were pitched to them by Tory activists and thinkers.

First up was Philip Blond who pitched the idea of a second chamber made up of representatives of civil society associations, Burke's "little plattoons" as he described them. He argued that this would strengthen representation and guard against vested interests by empowering those groups we find meaning in in a way that moves us beyond an atomised society of individuals.

Hannan - in what may or may not have been intended as a compliment - compared this to similar "corporatist" schemes ran by Mussolini and the Portugese dictator Salazar. The preference of most on the panel, and in the room, was for direct elections by the people.

A primordial scream echoes across Twitter. When it comes to the avalanche of stupid petty-minded authoritarian measures there really does come a point when words fail you.

Via @alixmortimer comes this latest insult to the British people:

Members of the public could earn cash by monitoring commercial CCTV cameras in their own home, in a scheme planned to begin next month.

The Internet Eyes website will offer up to £1,000 if viewers spot shoplifting or other crimes in progress.

The site's owners say they want to combine crime prevention with the incentive of winning money.

I blogged Tuesday on how weak Gordon Brown's speech to the Labour conference was and how pathetic his proposals are for constitutional reform. His plan to stick a referendum on the Alternative Vote system into the next manifesto seems almost designed to piss off campaigners.

AV, despite what a lot of journalists seem to think, isn't proportional  - it does nothing to ensure the number of seats a party has reflects the number of votes it receives and I know of no reformers who want that system.

The Vote for a Change campaign, run by the Electoral Reform Society, is now desperately urging people to write to Brown asking him to bring forward a referendum to election day. But relying on the PM for change really does seem like a lost cause.

Advocates of PR seized on the expenses scandal to make their case because they know that PR, which creates a more open and pluralist party system, would address the disconnect between politicians and the public which expenses brought to the fore. They also argued - and there is evidence for this on MarkReckons - that by ending "safe" seats PR would help check the arrogance and complacency of politicians who are happy to abuse the system safe in the knowledge they have a job for life.

When he became Prime Minister, Gordon Brown promised far-reaching reform of our democracy. But the Governance of Britain programme he launched is all but dead. At the height of the expenses scandal he again talked about giving away power, proclaimed himself a longtime fan of Charter 88, and made noises about a written constitution. We've heard nothing of this rhetoric since then.

Today, in his speech to the Labour party conference, Brown had the opportunity to commit to the real change he has so far failed to deliver - this was his one last chance to set out a radical agenda for reform and win back some initiative. But, to almost no one's surprise, he failed to deliver, instead offering a cowardly mixture of fudges and half-measures that will please no one.

He promised a referendum on electoral reform - but not until after the next election and even then only on the Alternative Vote system which wouldn't move Parliament any closer to being proportional. Peter Mandleson, speaking to Channel 4 News, called this sideways step "historical dynamite". Historical piss-take would be more accurate! As Stephen Tall on Lib Dem Voice points out, Labour offered a referendum on PR in their '97 manifesto - something they promised to review in their 2001 manifesto, but later dropped. Why would anyone now get excited about this new watered-down pledge?

Brown talked of a new right for constituents to recall errant MPs - but this would only be when voters are given permission from their political masters on high. His commitment to "remove the hereditary principle" in the Lords simply re-states Labour's position in their manifesto from twelve years ago - it hardly merited the strong outburst of applause it got from conference. We've been waiting for a hunded years - get on with it! 

The pity is that Brown clearly understands reform is needed but the changes he proposes fall far far short of what's needed. They reflect his timidity and insecurity and an instinct - shared by most of his Cabinet colleagues - to cling on to power at all costs.

Labour activists in the hall got excited at the pledge not to make ID cards "compulsory" in the next Parliament - they know how unpopular the cards are. But as Henry Porter points out, this is just Brown re-hashing an earlier commitment by Alan Johnson and in any case we all know there are different degrees of "compulsion", and it's possible to have something that's officially non-compulsory but impossible to live without.

 Interesting idea of the day from the Lib Dem conference: stand a candidate against John Bercow to campaign on a platform of democratic reform. The idea was expressed during an off-the-record discussion on how the LDs can make a breakthrough on constitutional reform and bring the issues to a wider public. The constitutional "convention" of course is that parties don't stand against the Speaker. But when you're the third party fighting a rotten system that's stacked against you it's got to be worth a shot, hasn't it? Bercow is a semi-corrupt establishment figure - a "flipper" who won't deliver the reform Parliament needs. So why not take him on?

Nigel Farrage, of course, has already broken with convention by declaring his candidacy. Perhaps the LDs should stand against Bercow and Farrage on a broad democratic agenda that includes full engagement by Britain in Europe....but then perhaps that would split the anti-Farrage vote and let UKIP in.

I've been discussing the proposal with James Graham on Twitter who thinks it would probably be a big waste of money and energy which would almost certainly have no impact on the public debate. This is pretty much the same objection James made to David Marquand's proposal that the LDs open up selection of their Lords to a national vote. I can see where he's coming from. Resources are limited and things are going to be tight for the LDs come the general election just to hold onto the seats they already have. 

So, I'm not saying this is a strategy the LDs should necessarily adopt, but like Anthony and David, I'm more and more convinved it's the kind of risk they need to be take if they want to make a breakthrough. Nick Clegg stole a lead on the other party leaders when he broke with convention and called on Speaker Martin to go. David Davis helped shifted the pubic's views on civil liberties when he resigned and fought a by-election on the issue of 42 days. His call for public debate was ultimately taken up by the Convention on Modern Liberty, which helped release exactly the kind of wider public energy many in the LDs hope to connect to.

So what do people think? Should the LDs stand against Bercow?

I'm in Bournemouth with the Lib Dems. I'm not a party man myself - I'm here to promote Power2010, hear some debates and sample the mood. 

Vince Cable had some good things to say at a packed Guardian fringe event on how to fix politics. He railed at how undemocratic public spending decisions are. When he was on Glasgow city council they'd go over the budget line by line, he said. It's ridiculous that Parliament has no input in to how billions of public money is spent. He also made good points on the link between electoral reform and cleaner politics and pointed out what is so often the elephant into the room when it comes to these kind of debates: the very real prospect of Scottish independence and the "total tragedy" of the UK dissolving (though he didn't say why this would be tragic other than the somewhat circular claim that the Union was one of our greatest historical achievements). The Lib Dems are the only ones facing up to this crisis, he said, with their policy for a fully federal constitutional system of nations and regions.

Professor John Curtice, who was also on the Guardian panel, was fairly hopeless. He ended up saying that more transparency and regulation is the wrong solution to political scandals as it simply exposes the wrong-doing of politicians and creates more hoops for them to jump through, generating more scandals in the long run as politicians use this to score points off each other. It was a bizarre argument to say the least.

Cable may be the darling of this year's conference, but it seems he still has some work to do to convince Bournemouth cabbies. Two of them told me in the most colourful terms why they don't approve of his idea to tax owners of £1m homes more which they reckon will punish lots of low income people who happen to live in expensive houses. This kind of reaction is quite widespread, I imagine, which makes me think they won't adopt it as policy.

I also caught some of Ming Campbell being interviewed by Steve Richards of the Independent. He gave a potted history of liberalism and told how he used to rebuff John Smith and Donald Dewar's attempts to convert him to socialism. Throughout his political life, he said, he has consistently been "a politician of the centre-left committed to a non-doctrinaire alternative to conservatism".

On Tony Blair, he said he'd never been able to get the measure of the man politically. He is the most "amazingly professional performer" - even Roy Jenkins was tricked by him when it came to his promises on electoral reform and the single European currency, which Blair went out of his way to convinve Jenkins he was sincere about. Those hoping the Chilcott Inquiry into Iraq will finally nail Blair are likely to be disappointed, he said. Campbell also gave a rather humorous account of how terrifying PMQs was for him as well as some interesting insights into his relationships with Charles Kennedy and Paddy Ashdown.  

I'm off now to the pub to join a gathering of Lib Dem bloggers organised by Lib Dem Voice. I hope to blog more later.

There remains a stunning degree of ignorance and complacency amongst the British political class when it comes to Scottish independence and the future of the UK, as Gerry's post on Dinner with Portillo makes clear. But you'd be hard pushed to beat the following comments on Scotland by David Starkey for sheer arrogance and stupidity. Starkey - who long ago abandoned academia for a career as a pompous TV controversialist -  argues for the Union in the most chauvinist ahistorical terms. This is what he had to say to Iain Dale:

You also sparked controversy with your remarks on Question Time about Scotland being a "feeble little nation".

It was a joke! The question was did I think the English should treat St George's Day the same way the Scots and all the rest of them treat their saints' days - St Andrew, St Patrick and my answer was no. That would mean we would become a feeble little nation like them and we're showing every sign of doing just that. H.G. Wells has this wonderful phrase - "the English are the only nation without national dress". It is a glory that we don't have such a thing.

If you want to be academic about it, there are two completely different patterns of nationalism in the British Isles - the Celtic nationalism of Scotland, Wales, Ireland, which is entirely typical nineteenth century European nationalism, an invention based on folklore, supposed authentic peasant cultures which are entirely fictional, national dress, national music and some goddamn awful national poet like Burns.

English nationalism went through that phase under Henry VIII. But if you do really want me to go back to being abusive - I would say that Scotland's decisions with the Libyan bomber confi rms everything I said about them. If you want to see what happens when a country becomes 'little' - when you have a government that wouldn't make county councillors in England, and a Minister of Justice that is an underemployed solicitor - that's what you get. And I am not anti-Scottish, I love Scotland - my childhood holidays were there - apart from that fact it pissed with rain all the time. But Scotland's greatness took place not in medieval history when it was a catastrophe of a place, but in its long, long association with England and Britain.

The transformation of Scotland from this deeply backward Presbyterian horror of the early 17th century - where you still hang a lad in the 1690s for denying the existence of the Devil - to this extraordinary 'Athens of the North' of the Scottish enlightenment, the amazing products of Glasgow University in the 18th century, is when Scotland looks out as part of a greater whole.

What's happened of course is that Scotland is now looking in. It has become exactly like medieval Scotland - the clannishness, the introversion, chucking money at the Edinburgh Festival to make it 'more Scottish', that awful Parliament, the dreadful Parliament building. The self-indulgence of the whole thing, the complete sense of in-growing toenail; I mean Edinburgh has turned into a city where you can see its toes growing in.

Blogger Mark Reckons has interviewed Helena Kennedy, Chair of POWER2010, the new campaign for democratic reform which launches today. POWER2010 is a bottom-up campaign which asks members of the public to submit and vote on their ideas for fixing our broken politics - the most popular will become the Power2010 pledge to be used to persuade and audit candidates and parties at the next election.

I'm working full-time on the campaign and hope to be blogging regularly on its progress and the different ideas it generates here. In this interview Helena Kennedy explains to Mark how the campaign will work and how we hope it will succeed:

POWER2010 sounds like an interesting campaign for political obsessives like me but why do you think this will succeed in a way that previous ones perhaps haven't? For example as far as I can tell, despite all the hard work of you and your colleagues, almost none of the original Power Inquiry key recommendations have been implemented three and a half years on.

There have been, as you say, many campaigns over the past few decades which have tried - in various ways - to get democratic and constitutional reform realised. I have been involved with many of them. You are right - despite the welcome the Power Inquiry report received - little has changed. I think you have identified the problem very accurately. In the end we have been reliant on politicians - those with power to implement reforms - reforms which in most cases will see them losing Power. And - they just can't take that!

So despite fine words, things don't change. But I do believe that change can happen. Look at how the Scottish Parliament came about - we needed an Act of Parliament and for MPs to vote for change. But they were persuaded in favour of the Parliament in the end because of the campaign in Scotland which involved civil society and real people and over years persisted and changed the culture in which that conversation was taking place. We need to do the same now.

Guy Aitchison and Stuart White: On the evening of April 7 Channel 4 News broadcast footage obtained by The Guardian which showed a police officer physically assaulting Ian Tomlinson on the day of the G20 protests, a few minutes before Mr. Tomlinson collapsed and died.

The video evidence contradicted earlier claims by the police that Mr. Tomlinson had not been in contact with them prior to his death. More generally, the footage played an important role in crystallising a growing public perception that the police failed to maintain acceptable standards of conduct in their operation at the G20 protests. This perception promoted at least three major inquiries into the policing of the G20 protests and some revision of police tactics.

Over at the Spectator Coffee House blog James Forsyth has trailed a provokative Tory ruse to repeal the hunting ban: 

It would look a bit odd if the Tories were to immediately devote substantial parliamentary time to it given all the other problems the country is facing.

However, there is an idea doing the rounds in Conservative circles as to how the party could get around this problem. Rather than a bill devoted exclusively to repealing the hunting ban, there would be one that would  concentrate on a whole host of civil liberties issues including ID cards. Hunting would merely be a section of it, with a free vote on the issue. This way the party would avoid the appearance of spending a considerable amount of time on the relatively fringe issue of hunting and would get to frame repeal of the ban as a civil liberties issue.

I have to confess that my first reaction upon reading this wasn't concern for the welfare of foxes - it was relief that the Tories appear to still be thinking about a freedom bill. Dominic Grieve toyed with the idea at the Convention on Modern Liberty early this year, but having heard nothing about it since I put this down to a case of the Shadow Justice Minister trying to win over a libertarian audience, all of whom had received copies of Chris Huhne's excellent Freedom Bill in their delegate packs. A freedom bill on these lines, which included the surveillance systems, the databases and the whole paraphernalia of authoritarian measures introduced in the name of technological modernisation and the fight against crime and terrorism, would undoubtedly be a good thing.

Well, better late than never. Over three months after mine and Stuart White's complaint to the BBC over their coverage of the G20 protests we've finally got an email which isn't just a generic reply and actually deals with some of the substantive points we raised. Unfortunately, they're still not admitting their coverage of the G20 protests was anything other than exemplary. At points the letter is defensive and evasive and when it comes to Julian Joyce's article on kettling, it's just plain wrong.

In the three months between our complaint and receipt of this email there was of course another Climate Camp with far more restrained policing, no kettling and no violence. Two points. First, it would be naïve to think this "community policing" approach reflects a genuine change in attitude amongst the Met rather than being PR-driven following some negative reports: an organisation's culture isn't going to change overnight and the structure of intrusive surveillance was still in place with photos being taken of protesters as they entered the Camp and a camera attached to a large cherry picker looking down on them. Second, it would be just as naïve to think the media has suddenly come round to the protesters' side. At any moment they're liable to switch back to the kind of anti-protester vitriol that characterised the early reporting of the G20 protests when they informed us that police rescued Ian Tomlinson from a baying mob of anarchists throwing bottles at their medics.

It was only after the overwhelming evidence of police brutality coming from citizen journalists that the media narrative changed. Although its initial reporting was nowhere near as misleading as the vitriol coming from the likes of the Standard and the Telegraph, the BBC is rightly held to a higher standard than these. But it demonstrated a warped sense of priorities when reporting on the policing of the G20 and at times was inaccurate and misleading. You can read our letters of complaint here and here. The reply from the BBC is below and you can read my response to it in more detail below that.

I spent a very pleasant and engaging afternoon at Climate Camp over the weekend along with Anthony Barnett, Clare Coatman and Tony Daly. The level of organisation was impressive and there was lots of good discussions going on, including one on "Green authoritarianism" which I hope to post a proper write-up on soon along with some pics.

With the last day of the Camp tomorrow, the much hyped "community style" police operation has already been hailed as "really successful" by Chief Superintendant Helen Ball and it's true that, apart from the ominous Big Brother-like eye staring down on the Camp from a cherry picker outside, police intimidation in the form of blanket stop-and-search, baton charges and intrusive FIT, was mercifully absent. Indeed I didn't see a single officer during my trip there. 

Paul Lewis in the Guardian has the Met's account of the tactics used as well as the reaction of Campers who, thankfully, aren't naive enough to think that a single heavily scrutinised protest in which their rights weren't trampled on amounts to a fundamental change in approach from the police:

Scotland Yard said tonight the model of policing used at Climate Camp, the week-long gathering of environmental activists that ends tomorrow, was a "really successful" approach that would be repeated at future demonstrations.

Chief Superintendant Helen Ball, a spokeswoman for policing at the campsite in Blackheath, south-east London, said neighbourhood-style tactics which included a "low-key" presence, limited surveillance of activists and almost no use of stop-and-search powers proved the Met had changed its approach since the G20 protests in April. The tactic is likely to be repeated at future demonstrations, she said, noting there had been just one arrest in seven days. "Where the opportunity arises to adopt a similar policing style in the future, we will do that."

The Met's six-day policing operation at the camp was in stark contrast to the way the force handled the April demonstrations, when many of the same protesters were "kettled" and charged with batons as they were forcibly cleared from Bishopsgate, central London, which they intended to occupy for one night.

Ball said the approach was "not an accident", but designed to build trust with activists after the G20 that would be repeated at future demonstrations. Organisers of the camp, which will end tomorrow as activists dismantle the site, which has been used as a model for sustainable living and training camp for activism, said more than 5,000 people took part in direct training workshops and discussion about global warming.

So, this year's Climate Camp is on Blackheath common in south-east London, the same common on which Wat Tyler gathered his army of poll tax rebels before marching on London in 1381. The police are apparently keeping a fairly low-key presence and letting the campers get on with it, though it remains to be seen how long this gentle "community policing" approach lasts once property interests are threatened as part of the direct action that's being planned. As expected, the Met's surveillance units are a lurking presence. A cherry picker has been erected in the middle of the camp with spot lights and cameras mounted on it (follow the link for a picture) with the feed apparently being monitored from nearby. In addition, FIT officers have a covert new piece of technology to aid them in their task of filming peaceful protesters, sorry,  "domestic extremists". Several of the officers, who usually wear high-vis jackets and carry cameras, had small badge-sized CCTV cameras attached to their jackets (see this pic by Marc Valee). When I saw this I was going to make a sarcastic comment along the lines of "what kind of 'community' has this level of surveillance?" until I paused to think: in New Labour's Britain the answer is "Almost all of them!"

Environmental protesters are right now gathered at seven locations acround London in preperation for the "swoop" at midday when they will descend on a secret location to set up the Climate Camp (the rumour on Twitter is it's going to be somewhere near the Olympics, but no one knows yet). It was raining this morning but the weather seems to have improved a bit now and we may yet see some sunshine. The police have been making last minute pleas for organisers to reveal the location, which they have refused to do having already pointed out in an open letter that the best thing the police could do for public safety is to "stay well away" from the camp.

It'll be interesting to see whether the police really do know the location from their "intelligence" and are just bluffing. They sent officers with note-pads along to the pre-swoop meeting in Russell Square last night as well as some rather shy FIT officers who apparently hid in bushes only to be embarassed by a heroic member of the public who confronted them for taking pictures of people without their consent. 

Despite all the spin from the Met about a new "community-style" of policing kettling, which drew so much criticism for its use at the G20, has not been ruled out and the Forward Intelligence Teams will still be there to intimidate and harass people. According to the eco-Guardian FIT will be taking a picture of everyone inside the camp; "because", says Chief Superintendent Helen Ball, "it is important for us to know if there are people coming who want to cause violence and disorder."

The fact Climate Camp is and always has been about peaceful protest with the only "violence and disorder" coming from the men in blue is of no relevance of course given the fact all peaceful environmental protesters are potential "domestic extremists" liable to find themselves on the database of the National Extremism Tactical Co-ordination Unit.

Anyone going to the Camp and concerned about FIT intrusion may like to print out one of these cards and play a spot of FIT bingo with the excellent FITWatch. Whoever gets the most photos of the FIT wins a prize. You play at your own risk though. As this video shows, FIT aren't too keen on the taste of their own medicine and you're liable to be attacked, arbitrarily arrested and detained. 

News of the police's "charm" offensive ahead of Climate Camp next week aroused concern on this blog and elsewhere that the Met was attempting to co-opt well-meaning protesters into its public relations strategy. That's why it's great to read such a strong arms-length response from Camp organisers in this open letter to Chief Superintendant Ian Thomas of New Soctland Yard. This, I think, is exactly the kind of open and honest communication with the police that activists should be engaged in - bravo Climate Camp! 

August 20, 2009

Open Letter FAO Chief Superintendent Ian Thomas,
New Scotland Yard
London SW1H 0BG

Dear Chief Superintendent Thomas,

On August 17th, you wrote to the Camp for Climate Action, requesting further information on the location of our next Camp, which will take place from August 27th to September 2nd, somewhere in the London area. You say that you require this information in order to help with "community liaison", to ensure the Camp is a "safe and healthy" event, and to help you put a "pre-planned and proportionate policing operation" in place. We are writing this open letter in order to alleviate your concerns, and to make our position clear both to yourself and to the public.

Community liaison has been a vital part of every Climate Camp. At Drax in 2006, Heathrow in 2007and Kingsnorth in 2008, we put a lot of time and effort into spending time with local residents and allaying people's concerns, and this year will be no different. We have a good track record of building community support for the Camp and for climate change campaigning, we've already been in touch with local Councils across London, and our friendly outreach volunteers will be chatting to the locals from the moment we arrive on site. We plan to be excellent neighbours for as long as we're there, we'll be open and welcoming to any local residents with questions or concerns, and we'll leave the site spotless when it's time to go.