21 October 2009

First they came for the Muslims ...

but I wasn't a Muslim so I did nothing.

There are reports of terrorism legislation being used to prevent a trade unionist (Steve Acheson) picketing a power station. It appears that he is doing this in order to fight against the use of black lists by people who employ contractors.

Instead of awarding him a medal, blog Northern voices (Terrorism Act 2000 being used against Blacklisted workers ) provides a report (picked up by IndyMedia) as does a construction industry newsletter (Terrorism Act may stop worker protesting at power station) that anti-terrorism legislation is being used against him.

Reading between the lines (and looking up the particular Acts), it looks as though a control order is being sought at the High Court using the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005.

In this Act, section 1(1) explains that,

"In this Act “control order” means an order against an individual that imposes obligations on him for purposes connected with protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism."

I would expect that the application will fail and I'd give odds of 80:20 that it will.

Incredible isn't it?

Update. I was right! The Manchester Evening News reports, "Power station fails to block protestor,

"A POWER station company has been refused an injunction against an electrician protesting outside the site because he claims he was made redundant for being on a construction industry secret blacklist.

High Court judge Mr Justice Mann said claims that Steve Acheson posed a threat to the security of the power station were 'fanciful to the point of paranoia'.


Gaby Dosanjh-Pahil, representing Scottish and Southern Energy, claimed Mr Acheson posed a threat to the site and should be restrained from trespassing on grass verges outside the perimeter fence of the power station.

She said he had threatened employees and posed a nuisance to people using the entrance road.

Mr Justice Mann, who said the allegation of a threat was disputed, ruled there may be a technical trespass involved but this should be dealt with at county court level.

"This court exists to grant injunctions in urgent cases. It does not exist to grant injunctions which might be thought to be convenient to applicants."

He awarded Mr Acheson the costs of the hearing.

So what was all of this talk about Terrorism???? It looks as though this case was simply about an application for an injunction?

Will await for some sort of law reports and post again. In the meantime, keep up the good work Mr Acheson.

No comments:

Post a Comment