There’s been much debate, in the comments section of this blog and elsewhere, of the merits of defending Occupy London Stock Exchange (OccupyLSX) from the eviction proceedings brought by the City of London Corporation in the High Court. Much of the argument raised against mounting a defence revolved around two ideas: firstly, a desire not to fight ‘within the system’ and, secondly, fear of retribution by corporations and authorities at a later date.
Whatever the merits of those arguments, the fact is that had OccupyLSX not defended the proceedings brought by the City, the High Court would have immediately granted the orders for eviction which the City seeks, without a trial or any further ado. In other words, the encampment currently nestled in between the Stock Exchange and St Paul’s Cathedral would be history by now and we’d instead be debating about how violent the police led eviction had been.
OccupyLSX decided to resist the eviction case. Consequently, evidence was needed to rest the defence on. Witnesses were required to present the evidence; each witness has to present their own evidence. That is how civil litigation works. Without people being prepared to take the risks which most worried the fearful, there could be no legal defence.
The list below contains the names of all the people prepared to stand up and be counted in the High Court proceedings. I am among them and in very excellent company. There are plenty of good people, great Occupationists and others, who are not on this list. In the sometimes difficult circumstances of our lives, there are plenty of good reasons for not ‘going public’. No-one outside this list can be criticised. However, for the moment, this list represents those of us lucky, organised and brave enough to stand up publicly to the undemocratic City of London. Whatever happens next, history will record these names as those who defended the Occupation at the London Stock Exchange.
- Naomi Colvin
- Tammy Samede
- Katherine Standen
- Richard Norman
- Rachei Mariner
- Robin Smith
- Susan Pell
- Annie Howard
- Daniel Fuloher
- Melanie Strickland
- Jenny Jones
- Elizabeth Beech
- Mark Weaver
- George O’Neil
- Michael Richmond
- Suzanne Cowan
- John Sinha
- Peter Coviile in a personal capacity and on behalf of Ocoupy LSX Energy & Environment Working Group
- Marina Olívella
- Robert Hooker
- Lee Field
- Steven Kitt
- Sara Newman
- Neil Howard
- Nathan Cravens
- Chloe Smith
- Adrian Leamen
- Richard Bentley
- Rev. Paul David Randle Jolìffe
- Duncan Roy
- Callurn Rae
- Tanya Dempsey
- Michael Hayton
- Daniel Durant
- Arvind Parrnessur
- Rabbi Newman
- Jack Dean
- John Corcoran
- Charles Mansell
- Michael Sabbagh
- Jonathan Orreli
- Nafeesa Shamsuddín
- Ben Cavanna
- Saskia Kent
- Dr Christopher Fursdon Davis
- James Albury
- Constantina Bakolìtsa
- Shou Jie Eng
- Leon Redier
- Christopher Fraser
- Chris Knight
- Dr Lucy Peel
- Chloe Ruthveh
- Christina Stíliioh
- John Howard MBE
- Annabel Page
- Sean O’DonneH
- Mark Welsh
- AnnaRose Phipps
- Tina Louise Rothery
- Stephen Moore
- Caroline Hannah Tean Craig-Hallam
- Revd Dr William Campbell-Taylor
- Joseph Carlo
- Christina Freeman
- Emma Fordham
- Kai Wargalla
- Riva Joffe
- Rebecca Curtis
- Mark Groves
- Veronica Young
- Rev Paul Nicolson
- Iona-Kathryn Evans
- Jamie Kelsey~Fry
- Brendan Jessop
- Sonia Reid
- Keith Parkins Manning
- Hanna Mackie
- Karen Edwards
- Charles Bazlinton
- Ryan Hickey
- Sian Williams
- Neelu Berry
- Sam Halvorsen
- Andrea Bakacs
- Matthew Varnham
Pingback: The mighty Cathedral which dare not speak out | Scrapper Duncan
Honoured by the company
What the heck happened to my witness statement?
Off the top of my head, I’ve got no idea. There were a number of people who submitted statements which were incorrectly formatted or unsigned or missed the submission deadline or a combination of the above. Perhaps yours was one of those? Perhaps it would help if you were to explain where you submitted it to, when and whether it was under the name you’re using here, then I could try to help out with a clearer answer.
Thanks, statement was received by Duncan of legal and it needed a signature. I sent it again after scanning a copy with my signature.
Have contacted Ben to see what happened and hope it got through before the deadline.
I am the Duncan you talk of. I’m sorry, I don’t recall receiving a assigned statement from you. Perhaps one of my colleagues in the legal team dealt with it; I’m making enquiries right now.
However, with 86 potential witnesses to draw from – we won’t need to call them all – we’ve got all our evidence covered, I think.
After reading some of your hate blogs about people who’s life choices and views differ from your own I promised myself not to view this blog again…yet I see your boast today being banded about the net so I just couldn’t stop myself from congratulating you…..*applauds* well done Duncan…85 people have faithfully followed you. I wish them all well, & truley hope my concerns are wrong. Enjoy your moment Duncan…because..in the light of day..thats all it is
looking foward to your sanctimonious response
Regards…the one you named a Troll…I would take offence..but from you…nah
I’m pleased that you keep reading my blog, despite your promises not to. Perhaps you should consider it as a New Year’s resolution? Perhaps you have a general problem with self-discipline? You’re not alone but luckily there are plenty of self-help groups…
I thought the more the better, but if mine is not needed, it’s okay.
On the whole, I agree with you. However the statements did have to follow certain criteria and, so far as I’m aware, everyone who did that is on the list. However, if yours did and we overlooked it in the scramble (the vast majority submitted their statements at the last possible minute), please accept my apologies. I have asked my colleagues to look into it but with the trial starting on Monday, doubtless they have other stuff to do. I do agree with you, that the more witnesses we had to draw upon the better but it must be remembered also that the witnesses have to be able to give evidence on the legal issues raised by the claim against the Occupation, which you can view on the City’s website. So more doesn’t necessarily equal better. What mattered most was gathering evidence which covers all the issues raised against us. All the same, I will try to check what happened to your statement.
Duncan I find you very obnoxious and think you should re-adjust your tone when speaking on behalf of Occupy London – you come across as an utter knob !!!!!
Don’t think we’ve had the pleasure LML? I find you much as you present yourself, too cowardly to identify yourself.
Based on your childish response need I say more….
You could start by identifying yourself properly and then discuss the post I wrote, or else remain a troll.
You can’t just insinuate that people with opinions are trolls. It’s ridiculous ! I too have been involved in Occupy and I don’t think your responses to comments people make are doing it any favours. Take some responsibility for that instead of making baseless accusations.
I’m not. I’m pointing out that you’re not actually commenting on the post I’ve written, in my preferred manner, which is to mock you.
Pingback: The enemy within Occupy London | Scrapper Duncan
Pingback: How to win democracy in the City of London – a proposal for a legal attack | Scrapper Duncan