On Wednesday 18th January the High Courts in London once again thronged with activists waiting to hear the decision of Justice(?) Lindbolm on the future of Occupy LSX. After a five day hearing at the end of last year many of those who attended had expected a positive outcome, stating the the Judge had been understanding and positive throughout the hearing. So they were very disappointed when the Judge – true to form – granted the City of London, possession of the land and eviction forthwith.
The decision to evict was based on the misinformation of one witness who stated that walkways were blocked and the public's access was denied, there were also concerns re sanitation but this was an issue that those living at St Paul's were well aware of and had been slowly working out ways to resolve the difficulties that arise when over 200 people end up camping in the middle of a busy tourist attraction in the heart of the city. Article 9 of the Human Rights Act was also evoked to protect the rights of worshippers who were apparently being obstructed from attending services in the cathedral.
The Occupy team had a number of defences, one of which was self-litigated, unfortunately though the justice system showed them so little respect that they failed to provide them with a copy of the judges decision until the morning of the trial, this failure to uphold proper procedure means that they have seven days to appeal against the judges decision. SchNEWS wishes them luck (but doesn't hold its breath) as they continue their battle further with the corrupt courts of injustice.
After the hearing Occupy and their supporters marched noisily down the strand for the short walk home, where they were able to digest and share the news with the rest of the camp and consider their options. Whatever the final outcome, Occupy LSX has surprised many with its impact thus far and it will no doubt continue to effect things in the future.
Paternoster Square the home of the Stock Exchange and the original target has been shut off to the public for the duration of the occupation thanks to a decision by the Corporation of London. Unfortunately though this has meant that one independent business is now in serious trouble, even though many other local businesses have flourished with the influx of visitors to the area.
And spare a thought for one very committed Occupant who has recently been evicted from her own council home as a direct result of her involvement with this movement. Punished for her beliefs – how many dirty tricks do the authorities use in their attempts to quash resistance, demoralising us in an attempt to weaken our resolve to change the system?