DAY 4254: THURSDAY JANUARY 24TH 2013.
Once the Mayor of London realised I survived yesterday's vicious assault by his police on Day 28 of my Hunger Strike, which rather proved that - he - did not want to see me in any court, he wrote again.
Trying to once again sidestep that I am reasonably saying, how about we do this the decent and civilised way, in court.
To: babs tucker
Subject: RE: MGLA220113-7298 HUNGER STRIKE DAY 27: A REASONABLE PROPOSAL.
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 10:13:12 +0000
Dear Mrs Tucker,
Further to your response to my email to you of 22nd January 2013 and your request to erect 2 tents on the Greater London Authority (GLA) controlled area of Parliament Square.
The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 expressly prohibits erecting a tent or other structure in the central area of Parliament Square. I have considered your reason for seeking to place a tent on the GLA controlled area of the Square and I am not persuaded that a tent is required to conduct your protest.
As a result I am formally directing you to refrain from placing any such tent, sleeping equipment or other structure in breach of the legislation on any part of Parliament Square controlled by the Greater London Authority.
Should you act in breach of this direction, the GLA will consider removing or seizing the tent or seek police assistance to do so. You will also be committing an offence of acting in breach of a direction from an Authorised Officer.
I would again urge you to end your hunger strike and consider an alternative way of expressing your strongly held views that does not put your health and well-being at risk.
Please note that the action taken on the morning of 23rd January 2013, was undertaken by the Police and not the GLA and the GLA does not have in its possession any seized items.
From: babs tucker
Subject: HUNGER STRIKE DAY 29
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 17:03:31 +0000
RE: EMAIL DATED JANUARY 24TH 2013.
The content of the Mayor's email dated January 24th 2013 is noted.
The Mayor of London already knows, that it is well established that we disagree on whether or not our campaign has tents.
What is/was obvious, is that I am actually asking the Mayor to confirm in writing without further delay, that he does agree, that where we are clearly in disagreement, we take the honourable and peaceful route of going to the High Court.
Then, I am asking for no more than Ms Gallastegui was afforded when she went to the High Court.
There is clearly a precedent set in that case for tents to remain during proceedings, not least, because:
a) the Mayor has not proved any case against me under the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011.
b) just like in trespass cases you cannot act until you have an injunction.
c) in addition is the fact that you previously had twenty eight days under the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, to take me to court over the tents, and did not.
So kindly agree without further assault on me, that it is sensible that we take the honourable and peaceful route of going to the High Court during which I can have two tents, just like Ms Gallastegui had three.
I do quietly remind the Mayor that it was after all Ms Gallastegui who originally - created - the problem/opportunity for the Mayor of London, under trespass law, with her so called "Democracy Village", during which the Mayor of London, extraordinarily refused without explanation under cross examination, to prosecute Ms Gallastegui, while prosecuting Brian and I, while Brian had cancer and we were nothing to do with Democracy Village/Peace Strike.
Exhibit 1(bt23.01.2013.jpeg): It is noted that the Mayor of London had failed to respond before I was violently and dishonourably assaulted yesterday, at the hands of the Metropolitan Police (and the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police is answerable to/works for the Mayor of London).
This horrific incident caused (for example) my blood pressure to be recorded as 188/139.
Clearly contrary to the police nonsense at 1am and 3am this morning, when I am told they were childishly claiming it is necessary to be holding an umbrella, I will not be holding an umbrella in the near future, due to police trying to....break my neck etc.
In addition of course, is the fact that this was done in the face of an Application made under S59 (2) of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001.
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: THE MAYOR OF LONDON REPLIES
>>>> HUNGER STRIKE DAY 28: "ARREST" 48
>>>> 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...