HUNGER STRIKE DAY 28: THE MAYOR OF LONDON REPLIES.
DAY 4253: WEDNESDAY JANUARY 23RD 2013.
When the Mayors bod wrote to me, I responded with a "reasonable proposal" because I really would like to end my Hunger Strike, now...
To: babs tucker
Subject: RE: MGLA170113-6882 HUNGER STRIKE DAY 22: THE PUBLIC RECORD.
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 12:21:26 +0000
Dear Mrs Tucker,
I write in response to your recent emails to the Mayor of London in relation to your activities on Parliament Square, the hunger strike in which you are currently engaging and your application made pursuant to section 59(2) of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001.
Before addressing the points you have raised, for your own well-being, I would first strongly urge you to end your hunger strike and seek an alternative and safer means of expressing your views.
I note that you have made an application to the court in which the Mayor is named as a Defendant and seeking release of properties allegedly seized from you. We are unclear why the Mayor is a named defendant in this application particularly as we have informed you on numerous occasions that the Mayor's authorised officers have neither authorised nor seized any of your belongings. The Mayor /Greater London Authority (GLA) will defend any such application if served and will seek to recover any costs incurred in doing so.
I should stress that the pavement which you are currently occupying is controlled by Westminster City Council and not the GLA and we are not currently taking any legal action against you.
For future reference our address for service of any legal process is;
Transport for London
42-50 Victoria Street
I will attempt to clarify for you in the following paragraphs the applicable parts of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011.
The 2011 Act was specifically designed by Parliament to address the harm caused by encampment and other disruptive activities on Parliament Square and it specifically prohibits the use of tents, sleeping equipment or any other structure designed or adapted for the purpose of facilitating sleeping or staying in a place for any period. This is the reason you are not permitted to use such items on the Square.
A reasonable excuse to contravene the legislation would only be considered acceptable in very exceptional and unusual circumstances and as such we are not in a position to say what this might be; it would need to be determined at the time by the relevant Authority. However, based on the mischief the legislation is seeking to address and previous court cases and judgements, we are certain that your argument for the use of tents and sleeping equipment to create a permanent encampment on the Square is not a reasonable excuse for not complying with direction given pursuant to the 2011 Act.
The court held in R (on the application of Gallastegui) v Westminster City Council that the provisions of the 2011 legislation in so far as it relates to Parliament Square do not contravene any rights entrenched in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). As a result the GLA's authorised officers will continue to enforce the Act on the GLA controlled areas of Parliament Square Garden.
You might find it helpful to refer to the publically available Home Office guidance on the Act that clearly states that the legislation is not about restricting people's right to protest but aims to address the harms caused by encampments and other disruptive activities. The Guidance can be found at;
In relation to your argument about not being able to have a tent or shelter on the Square as a result of enforcement under the Act, it should be noted that you are present on the Square subject to the provisions of the 2011 legislation and so far as you comply you will not break the terms of the legislation. The Act as explained above has not provided scope for anyone to simply set up a camp or sleeping equipment, unless specifically allowed to do so in the most exceptional circumstances. A 24hr vigil for no determined period is not considered sufficient reason to breach the specific provisions of the legislation or to fail to comply with a direction. You may want to review the scope and manner of your protest given your health concerns.
It has also been made clear to you in previous communications that the GLA does not have any duty of care to provide you with or allow you to erect a tent or use any sleeping equipment in the controlled area of Parliament Square which are prohibited activities under the Act. I suggest you seek legal advice on this point from Birds solicitors, who I understand are instructed on your behalf.
If you genuinely have nowhere else to go and are homeless, Westminster City Council, as the local authority, have responsibility for housing and will be able to advise you on the options available to you, including emergency accommodation. They can be contacted on 020 7641 6000. Information is also available on their website.
...and then the police "liaison" seemed to remember that the police stole our property on January 16th 2012 which was then returned, without our being prosecuted within 28 days as per the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act says, with them still delaying further by then not being able to explain why it was - all - taken again, by various public authorities including the Mayor of London, Westminster Council and the police.
So where there is no clarity (as they all know, there must be in law) I made a reasonable proposal that I should be treated like others, because I really would like to end my Hunger Strike, now.
Sea Food - but not eating.
From: babs tucker
Subject: HUNGER STRIKE DAY 27: A REASONABLE PROPOSAL.
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 16:22:49 +0000
I am not necessarily arguing that the legislation is incompatible with the Human Rights Act, (if the Mayor concedes that he cannot - also - apply trespass law).
What the Mayor does know is that it is unlawful for the Mayor to use legislation to make it physically impossible for us to survive, thus curtailing what is an effective campaign that is, for valid reasons, whether he likes it or not, 24/7.
While politicians all up the food chain have made it clear how much they despise our campaign, we meet people from all around the world every day who want us to do what we peacefully do.
Re: The application to Southwark Crown Court: Numerous video footage on our website shows C.UK calling police and police removing tents, banners etc, with all acting on GLA say so etc., as per your letter (which establishes locus standi).
Logically, a "reasonable excuse" must be valid for all circumstances.
And we are clearly distinguished from Gallastegui, in that our "reasonable excuse/s" are different.
What I reasonably propose is that you agree we have two tents on the grass (Gallastegui had three on the pavement ) while we put the facts before either the Crown or the High Court to get a ruling to confirm that:
a) as the legislation says, we must be prosecuted within 28 days (and if not, then the property must be returned and that is the end of the matter, in that our property cannot be taken again or ourselves prosecuted)
b) whether or not Health and Safety law/duty of care, applies (because the GLA policy, which is published on your website, includes actions that affect others and you must have to conduct a health and safety risk assessment)
c) whether or not, upholding the law & survival are "reasonable excuse/s".
Re: costs. Clearly Freedom of Expression is supposed to be …free.
Otherwise public authorities are abusing their power in charging the people while admitting there is no clarity (which in law, there must be)
It would clearly be unfair to deny me tents until after any ruling in the Crown or High Court, because a) Gallastegui had tents and b) because a reasonable person would understand that they are clearly necessary for our survival.
I look forward to hearing that - without further delay - you can agree to treat me the same as for example, Gallastegui, with tents and court, so that I can agree to finish my Hunger Strike, which I really would like to do at the earliest opportunity (i.e. Day 28 !)
This is particularly important given that you admit in your own letter that (despite it being necessary in law to have clarity), there is no clarity on what you consider to be a reasonable excuse.
Parliament Square Peace Campaign
>>>> HUNGER STRIKE: STARTED 27TH DECEMBER 2012
>>>> HUNGER STRIKE: INTERVIEW WITH PRESS TV
>>>> HUNGER STRIKE: POLICE "DIALOGUE": IT'S THE MAYOR
>>>> HUNGER STRIKE DAY 11: MINUS ZERO FREEDOM
>>>> HUNGER STRIKE DAY 12: OPEN LETTER
>>>> HUNGER STRIKE: BABS INTERVIEWED BY ABC NEWS
>>>> HUNGER STRIKE DAY 21: 366 DAYS WITHOUT SHELTER
>>>> HUNGER STRIKE: "SPEED IS NOT THE LAW'S GREATEST ASSET"
>>>> HUNGER STRIKE DAY 22: "THE PUBLIC RECORD"
>>>> HUNGER STRIKE DAY 23: SNOW AND THE BBC ...TENT
>>>> HUNGER STRIKE DAY 25 IN WESTSINSTER
>>>> HUNGER STRIKE DAY 26: ANOTHER TORY PSYCHOPATH LIES
>>>> HUNGER STRIKE DAY 28: "ARREST" 48
>>>> HUNGER STRIKE DAY 29: THE MAYOR RESPONDS... AGAIN
>>>> HUNGER STRIKE: THANK YOU, DAVID ICKE
>>>> HUNGER STRIKE DAY 30: TUCKER -v- UK STATE (UMBRELLA)
>>>> HUNGER STRIKE DAY 30: WESTMINSTER CITY "POLICE" LETTER
>>>> HUNGER STRIKE DAY 30: TENT EMAIL FROM PECKHAM PLOD
>>>> HUNGER STRIKE: BREAK-FAST NEWS...