This Indymedia report has some photos of the GLA Fence being removed by contractors, as various people camping on the grass were evicted yesterday.
The Greater London Authority, under the orders of the Labour Mayor of London Ken Livingstone, controls the central grass area of Parliament Square (technically Parliament Square Gardens) through Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square byelaws, which do not extend to the pavement area where Brian Haw's protest is located.
Ken Livingstone could give permission for the evicted campers (general peace activists and some Burmese demonstrators), but he has refused to do so over the years, whilst pretending to support many of the causes of the various protesters.
Will the Fence magically re-appear, or will a more permanent one be erected ? How much has this potential danger to the public cost the taxpayers of London ?
Some of the byelaws under the Greater London Authority Act 1999 section 385 which apply to Parliament Square Gardens:
Acts prohibited within the Squares3. No person shall within the Squares-
[...]
(6) fail to comply with a reasonable direction given by an authorised person to
leave the Squares;[...]
Acts within the Squares for which written permission is required
5. Unless acting in accordance with permission given in writing by-(a) the Mayor, or
(b) any person authorised by the Mayor under section 380 of the Act to give such permission.
no person shall within the Squares-
(1) attach any article to any tree, plinth, plant box, seat, railing, fence or other
structure;(2) interfere with any notice or sign;
(3) exhibit any notice, advertisement or any other written or pictorial matter;
(4) play or cause to be played a musical instrument;
(5) use any apparatus for the transmission, reception, reproduction or amplification of sound, speech or images, except apparatus designed and used as an aid to defective hearing, or apparatus used in a vehicle so as not to produce sound audible to a person outside that vehicle, or apparatus where the sound is received through headphones;
(6) discharge any weapon which is a firearm within the meaning of section 57 of the Firearms Act 1968a, or project any missile manually or by artificial means;
(7) camp, or erect or cause to be erected any structure, tent or enclosure;
8) collect or solicit money or any other gift;
(9) make or give a public speech or address;
(10) organise or take part in any assembly, display, performance, representation, parade, procession, review or theatrical event;
(11) take photographs or any other recordings of visual images for the purpose of or in connection with a business, trade, profession or employment or any activity carried on by a person or body of persons, whether corporate or unincorporate;
(12) ride any animal on a Square;
(13) go on any shrubbery or flower bed;
(14) cause or permit any animal or bird of which he is in charge to chase, worry or injure any animal or bird;
(15) engage in any organised form of sport or physical exercise which causes a disturbance to any other person using the square;
(16) unless in an emergency, cause any vehicle to wait, or leave any vehicle unattended;
(17) use any pedal cycle, roller skate, ice skate, roller blade, skate board or other foot-propelled device;
(18) tow or leave any caravan.
[...]
The Mayor of London's media spinners have issued a mendacious Press Release:
https://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release.jsp?releaseid=14116
in which they claim that somehow, the Fence was put up for "maintenance" purpose. - what "maintenance"was actually done, and how much did it cost ?
There have been other claims that the "grass was being re-seeded", which any gardener will tell you is rubbish, given that it is the wrong season of the year to do so. T
There were no "please keep off the re-seeded grass area" signs, were there ?
It was not necessary to put up this Fence in order to clear the square of illegal campers.
Do the byelaws apply in parallel to the laws? If so, many demonstrators who obtained an authorisation from Charring Cross Police station and were lawfully demonstrating under SOCPA 132 were apparently in breach of the byelaw 5.b.(3)
br -d