On the 22nd of May #OccupyOil will be holding a funeral procession for Dutch Shell Oil. In a turnaround we are calling for the end of Shell’s destructive behavior throughout the world, from the west coast of Ireland to the Niger Delta.

Many people have lost their lives resisting the behavior of this unethical company.

It time we said “Rest in Peace Shell”.

Shell makes nearly £1.6m profits every hour. Help us say farewell to this 1% company.

When and where

St Paul’s Cathedral
Arrival 815am
The Shell Corpse will leave at 845am.

Strict dress code: BLACK

Contact:

Twitter – @OccupyOil – #OccupyOil

Facebook –

Group – http://Facebook.com/Groups/OccupyOil
Event – http://Facebook.com/Events/230582443683609

Website – http://OccupyOil.co.uk

Youtube – http://YouTube.com/OccupyOil

Bring noise, banners, black umbrellas and more importantly yourselves.

Tube and Rail Stations close by:

St Paul’s Tube Station (Central Line) – (5 minutes)
Mansion House (District and Circle Line) – (8 Minutes)
City Thames-link (National Rail) – (5 Minutes)
London Blackfrieers (National Rail) – (7 Minutes)
London Canon Street (National Rail) – (13 Minutes)
Bank Tube Station (Central Line) – (15 Minutes)

The City of London Police has unsuccessfully attempted to illicit information regarding the upcoming global event – Occupy Oil the Sequel (RIP Shell). PC Julie Hall (573CP) sent Occupy Oil an e-mail requesting the number of people who are attending this event along with the proposed action. Also sent with the e-mail was two PDF Application Forms. One being for a Procession protest (Appendix 1) and the other being for a Static protest.

The Human Rights Act 1998 protects the right of every citizen to peacefully protest. These rights are listed under Article 10 and Article 11 of the Human Rights Act. Case law also establishes that the Police are not allowed to prevent any peaceful protest without good reason.

Below is an extract of the  e-mail which can also be seen in the picture below:

From: (Julie.Hall@City-of-London-PNN-Police.uk)

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

It has come to our notice you and other groups are intending to hold some form of demonstration / precession at or around the Shell AGM on Tuesday 22nd May.

We would like to speak to you regarding this so we can police the event proportionately.

We would look to facilitate any peaceful protest but would appreciate you completing the attached form to provide us details regarding numbers and any proposed action.

If you can complete the attached form and return it to us with as much detail as possible, I would be most grateful – alternatively please give me a call on  020 7601 2592.

CLICK IMAGES TO ENLARGE

An Example of City of London facilitating a protest

——————————————————–

Let’s make a stand this May 22!

Join Occupy Oil

——————————————————–

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998

SCHEDULE 1 – The Articles

PART I – The Convention Rights and Freedoms

Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life)

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Article 9 (Freedom of thought, conscience and religion)

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Article 10 (Freedom of expression)

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Article 11 (Freedom of assembly and association)

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.

Source = http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1

Case Law

R (Laporte) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire and others  [2006] UKHL 55

A test case taken by John Halford to challenge the policing of an anti-war demonstration at RAF Fairford in 2003. The House of Lords ruled that the claimants’ Article 10 and 11 ECHR human rights to freedoms of speech and assembly were breached and that peaceful protest can only be prevented in the most extreme circumstances, a development the most senior House of Lords judge, Lord Bingham, described as a ‘constitutional shift’.

——————————————————–

R (Rubens and McClure) v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner (CO/6880/2009)

A challenge to a police decision to unlawfully arrest, search, handcuff and film over 60 peaceful protesters gathered inside a social centre at Earl Street during the 2009 G20 protests. Gwendolen Morgan and Stephen Grosz acted for the majority of the protesters, who were awarded damages resulting out of their treatment by way of civil claims. The police also agreed to destroy the films and photographs of the claimants and not place their data on the Police National Computer.

——————————————————–

R (McClure and Moos) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

John also represented a number of activists who were kettled and beaten while protesting at the April 2009 G20 Climate Camp. On Thursday 14 April 2011, the Divisional Court ruled that the use of kettling and force against 4000-5000 represented an unlawful policing operation. Offensive “shield strikes”, were ruled “unnecessary” and “unjustified”. Instructions to subordinate officers were “not satisfactory very general and imprecise”. During the course of the evening “officers declined to release people who should have been released.” Police evidence given direct to the Court by the senior officer responsible for the operation, CI Johnson, that groups within the Climate Camp were intent on disorder and criminality was “not… convincing” according to the Court.

——————————————————–

R (Morris, E and T) v Chief Constable of Kent Police [2009] EWHC 2264 (Admin)

A judicial review of the Kingsnorth Climate Change Camp policing operation brought by John Halford on behalf of the well-know activist Dave Morris and 11 year old twins. The secret police policy of subjecting those who wanted to pass through and join the protest to multiple stops and searches of was ruled to be unlawful and a breach of protestors’ Article 8, 10 and 11 rights. A civil claim arising out of the successful judicial review was settled with a significant payment, an apology and Kent’s agreement to disseminate an agreed letter setting out the ‘lessons learned’ to all other UK forces.

——————————————————–