Category: Lobbying

Numbers swell at vigil


Higher numbers still at 90th vigil in Salisbury

August 2025

Around 55 attended this week’s vigil exceeding last weeks total. More stood and took notice and many photos were taken by passers by. The ‘Honk for Gaza’ sign attracted 32 honks. Several new faces attended which is encouraging. An excellent video of the vigil is available here courtesy of Peter Gloyns. A feature of the vigils is the range of posters and signs that people bring.

Israel is now preparing to launch an offensive to capture Gaza City. Bombing has started already causing many casualties: the total known is now 62,000. Many thousands more lie under the rubble unaccounted for. Over a 1,000 have been shot by IDF soldiers and US mercenaries at the limited food distribution sites fun by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation GHF. What is upsetting many are the scenes of starving children, especially infants below the age of 5, for whom proper food is vital. Interviews with Israeli officials are met with denial. They claim there is no famine and that there is plenty of food available. According to Haaretz, the majority of Israelis are not aware of the famine in Gaza.

The UN declared a famine in part of Gaza this week: it is unable to do so for other areas as it cannot get sufficient data. António Guterres. the UN Secretary General said it was a ‘man made disaster, a moral indictment – and a failure of humanity itself’. Image: UN

Images: Salisbury Amnesty

Previous posts:

Walking Madonna is in the Cathedral Close in Salisbury.

Image: Peter Gloyns

1

Anti-protest law modified


High Court loosens restrictions on demonstrations

May 2025

No government likes protests. They demonstrate, all too visibly, that the public – or a part of them at least – is not happy with them or the status quo. Depending on the degree of despotism, demonstrations are controlled or in the worst of countries, banned altogether. China has an extremely restrictive policy backed up by a massive and all pervasive surveillance system making protests all but impossible. Gulf states are also highly restrictive.

Demonstrations are often how change happens. Britain has many examples throughout its history of protest bringing change. Wat Tyler and the plight of the poor (serfs); the Poll Tax riots in 1381 and 1970; the Prayer Book rebellion; the Iraq War protest and of course the Suffragettes. There are many more examples. They do not necessarily bring about immediate change. They do show to politicians and others the depth of feeling that people have about their cause.

The last Conservative government was no different to others in disliking protests. What upset them the most were the climate protests. Just Stop Oil and other groups such as Extinction Rebellion, engaged in a series of eye-catching protests which shone a light on the government’s failure (in their eyes) to do enough to stop fossil fuel extraction.

Suella Braverman, then the Home Secretary resented these protests and introduced the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act in 2022 in an attempt to seriously curtail them. Controversially they introduced a change in the threshold wording from ‘serious disruption’ to ‘more than minor’. This was done by using a statutory instrument not after proper debate in the House of Commons. This had the effect of almost banning all protests.

Successful challenge

Liberty and other groups successfully challenged this in the courts and the new Labour government decided to appeal. This seems to demonstrate that the dislike of protest is not a party political matter: governments just do not like challenge. Last week (May 2) the Appeal Court ruled that ‘serious’ is not ‘more than minor’ and said that the anti-protest laws were introduced unlawfully. The regulations gave police almost unlimited powers to prevent protests taking place. Many were arrested using these powers.

The protests which so upset the previous government concerned fossil fuels. The fossil fuel industry is extremely powerful and well-funded. Several of the various think tanks based in and around 55 Tufton Street are thought to be funded by them. These include: The Tax Payers Alliance; Civitas; Adam Smith Institute; Global Warming Policy Foundation; Centre for Policy Studies and the Institute of Economic Affairs. Their funding is opaque but is thought to be mainly from fossil fuel companies such as the Koch corporation in the USA among others. They have frequent access to the media being interviewed on various BBC and commercial stations without ever being asked ‘who funds you?’ Their opinions often appear in newspaper columns. They employ large numbers of lobbyists and enjoy close contact with ministers and civil servants. They claim to be influential in forming policies to suit their interests. It was admitted by Rishi Sunak when he was prime minister that the Policy Exchange – another of these think tanks funded by Exxon Mobil – had drafted the anti-protest legislation.

Protest is crucial to enable the ordinary person to make their voice heard. As with the arms industry we highlighted in a previous post, governments are dominated by commercial concerns, the need for growth and the enormous power and influence of companies and their army of lobbyists. Around £2bn per annum is spent by firms on this activity. It is welcome news that the Appeal Court has ruled against the government and its ‘draconian’ anti-protest legislation.

1

The State v. Trudi Warner


Interesting and troubling webinar by the Good Law Project on the case of Trudi Warner

June 2024

Readers will recall that earlier in the year, Trudi Warner stood outside the Inner London Criminal Court and held up a placard telling passers by that juries had the right to vote on their conscience. The trial was taking place of several climate activists and a key issue was that the judge in the case, Judge Silas Reid, prevented the defendants from mentioning that they were campaigning for action on the climate. The worry was that if the jury realised that this was what the defendants were doing, there was a probability that they would acquit. Many websites commenting on this case allege that the judge is against people protesting (which we cannot verify) hence his aggressive threats to defendants and others.

Trudi Warner was then arrested for contempt of court by displaying her placard which states a fact, long established in English law, that juries can indeed vote on their consciences. This was established in the Bushell (sometimes Bushel) case of 1670, where a judge locked up a jury and deprived them of food and water for disobeying his directions.

Jolyon Maugham of the Good Law Project, said that people had a ‘sweet notion’ of the law which this case cast into doubt. It was one of the factors in the Brexit debate where people often spoke of sovereignty and an aspect of that was hostility to Brussels (actually Strasbourg) telling us what to do. ‘We should have our own laws’ was a frequent refrain. This has re-emerged with the proposed Rwanda flights and a desire by some politicians to come out of the European Convention. There is a deep belief in the primacy of British Justice with its ancient traditions going back to Magna Carta. This and other cases demonstrate that this sanguine view of our justice system is misplaced.

Climate protests

The state has the power to lock people up and juries are a means of tempering this power he said. The plain fact was that the fossil fuel companies mounted well-funded campaigns to promote their activities and frustrate governments trying curb fossil fuel use. There is a close association between government, Big Oil and the media. Sections of the media refer to protestors as an ‘eco-mob’, ‘zealots’ or a ‘rabble’ among other epithets. Fossil fuel companies fund several Tufton Street think tanks with millions, yet TV companies, including the BBC and Channel 4, fail to ask interviewees from them, ‘who funds you?’

The various protest organisations including XR and Just Stop Oil angered government ministers by highlighting the shortcomings of government actions in dealing with the climate crisis. Their activities had also angered members of the public who were sometimes inconvenienced. As ever, a totally peaceful protest is ignored but glue yourself to the pavement and you achieve some publicity.

Arrest

So Trudi Warner was arrested for contempt of court and ended up in the Old Bailey for trial 8 days later. At a permission hearing which establishes whether there is an arguable case, it was thrown out by the judge who said that the ‘government had mischaracterised the evidence‘ and that it was ‘fanciful to suggest that Ms Warner’s actions fall into the category of contempt‘. The government said it is to appeal the decision [before the election was called]. It is ironic to note that a plaque celebrating the seventeenth century Bushell case is fixed to a wall in … the Old Bailey. To remind ourselves – the placard merely pointed out the plain fact that a jury has the right to decide a matter according to its conscience and to disagree with the judge’s direction.

Conclusion

The government has introduced a range of bills which all have an effect of making protest more difficult and risky. Police have been given more powers which they have used in preventing protests from taking place including, for example, at the Coronation. There is a kind of cosy alliance between Big Oil with its range of well-funded lobbyists; a government all too keen to restrict protest, and some media organisations who eagerly demonise protestors and deny climate science. In the process, rights and justice are trampled on. If, as is being predicted, a Labour government comes into power on 5th July, it will be interesting to see if they pursue the appeal. It will a quick test on whether they will follow in the authoritarian footsteps of their predecessors or adopt a more permissive regime. Early signs are not promising as they do not have plans to annul any of the existing legislation.

During the webinar, we saw clips of film of the protests prepared by Page 75 Productions who will be hosting a showing of the full film in September. A video can be accessed here.

Sources: Good Law Project; The Guardian; The Canary; Christian Climate Actions

1

Meeting with Mr Glen MP


Members of the Salisbury group will be meeting the MP for Salisbury on Friday

In common with well over a hundred organisations, Amnesty is extremely concerned about several of the bills currently on their way through parliament. These are the enormous Police, Crime and Sentencing bill, the Justice and Courts bill and the Nationality and Borders bill. Together with the expected review of the Human Rights Act, they amount to a concerted attack on our freedoms. The group wishes to express our concerns to the MP. We will report on his reactions after the meeting.

The views of the Justice Secretary Dominic Raab were discussed in our last post.

Podcast

0

Lobbying – the hidden scandal


Lobbying and business influence in government at a high level.  MPs receive millions for lobbying

We have frequently drawn attention to the issue of corporate influence on our political process and in particular, the role of oil and arms companies.  We have recently seen three leaders from China, Egypt and India, visit the UK and be given the red carpet treatment.  Each has – to put it mildly – a poor human rights record.

In the case of China it includes the use of torture, shutting down the freedom of speech and more executions than the rest of the world put together.  Egypt has been involved in mass arrests and torture and President Modi of India has a dubious record in terms of the treatment of Muslims.

It seems as though the ‘prosperity agenda’ is eclipsing all else and the only thing that matters seemingly, is the pursuit of business and contracts.  No one is arguing for boycotts but that the issue of human rights be brought up in discussion with these leaders.

A factor in this is the role of lobbyists and a recent analysis by Transparency International is worrying and should receive wider coverage.

Analysing the new UK Register of Lobbyists and data from Parliamentary registers of interests, their new research has found:

  • Less than 4% of lobbyists are covered by the Government’s new lobbying register – almost all lobbyists are completely unaccountable.
  • 8/10 of the most frequent lobbyists are from FTSE 100 companies – lobbying is dominated by the corporate world.
  • £3.4 million paid to 73 MP’s last year for external advisory roles – a significant risk of conflicts of interest.
  • Payments for Parliamentary advice is still allowed in the House of Commons, but prohibited in the House of Lords, Scotland and Wales – a major loophole in the rules (TI’s emphasis)

The findings come after detailed analysis of research across Westminster, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.  The report can be read on their web site or can be accessed here.  [There is also a permanent link to their site at the bottom of our page under ‘Links‘]

With such a high level of corporate lobbying and with the substantial level of fees MPs are earning, it is perhaps not surprising that business interests get such a high profile and human rights issues so low.

It appears from the report that the situation has got worse under the new government.  There were some publications of meetings with lobbyists concerning the previous year but that now seems to have stopped.  Most of the lobbying it seems is around domestic matters for example, firms trying to get a slice of the health service.

Business is important and of course companies should be free to lobby.  But it should be transparent and registered.  More importantly, business interests should not trump all else.  The government is not after all some kind of selling operation for FTSE 100 companies.

UPDATE: 16 NOVEMBER

It’s not about human rights but as if to illustrate the point, it’s just been reported the ex Health Minister, Lord Lansley, is to take up posts with firms hoping to profit from the NHS. 

Andrew Lansley and the revolving door

0

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑