Fairford war protesters in line for pay-out

7:30pm Wednesday 20th February 2013 in News By Josh Layton

A protester is arrested at RAF Fairford A protester is arrested at RAF Fairford

A SWINDON councillor is among anti-war protesters in line to receive compensation of more than £4,000 each for being prevented from reaching an RAF air base.

Coun Derique Montaut (Lab, Liden, Eldene and Park South) was part of a group that was stopped by police from reaching a mass rally at Fairford at the start of the Iraq conflict in 2003.

A County Court judge in London has ruled that officers acted outside their powers when they took similar action against another group at Lechlade.

Judge David Mitchell said the move ‘was an interference with the right of ordinary citizens to go about their business’.

Coun Montaut was in a separate group several miles from the air base, but believes they too will be due compensation as the police also barred their way.

He said: “I’m pleased that the judge has reached this decision.

“We live in a democratic state, but that day it felt like a police state. Everyone has a right to their point of view and to the right to protest peacefully. Whether people agreed with the protestors or not, we should have been able to voice our opinion.”

Coun Montaut said the group stopped at Lechlade was ‘thoroughly searched and left feeling humiliated’ before being sent to London.

Coun Montaut said: “There were between 40 and 50 of us and, as we started to march on the border of Gloucestershire, we were met by a body of fairly gruff looking officers from Gloucester-shire Constabulary who were taking an aggressive stance.

“They were out in strength and told us we were not going any further, it was intimidating and frightening.

“As much as we disagreed with it, we were on a peaceful march and nobody wanted to be arrested so we went back to Swindon with our tails between our legs. However, we followed up our protests and it received widespread media coverage.”

The Lechlade group campaigners will receive between £4,200 and £5,100 compensation, opening the way for other claims.

Coun Mountaut said: “Lessons have to be learned.

“The financial claims brought to bear on Gloucestershire police show they acted irresponsibly against citizens who were acting completely peacefully.”

Comments(39)

Impact 7 says...
8:05pm Wed 20 Feb 13

£4000 for that ?? what a soft joke we are. Be a nice gesture if these protestors donated it to charity ...how about, " help for heroes ", the very people who put their lives on the line so you have your democratic rights.

Report this post »

adsinibiza says...
10:21pm Wed 20 Feb 13

Impact 7 wrote:
£4000 for that ?? what a soft joke we are. Be a nice gesture if these protestors donated it to charity ...how about, " help for heroes ", the very people who put their lives on the line so you have your democratic rights.
Excellent idea.....

Report this post »

house on the hill says...
6:56am Thu 21 Feb 13

The usual double standards brigade, they want a free country but don't think we should be defending it. Complete idiots and yes a charity would be the perfect place for the payouts if they truly cared for their cause.

Report this post »

Hmmmf says...
7:59am Thu 21 Feb 13

So, more financial resources will be taken from an already emasculated police force, more taxpayer's money down the drain. Of course it wouldn't have occurred to Montaut to march against Westminster and his glorious Labour leaders Blair & Co who were directly responsible for the war. No, instead he marches against an RAF base and the men and women Blair ordered into war, and as a result he and his mates will divvy up a quarter of a million quid. The real face of modern Labour, squandering the public purse and shirking all responsibility.

Report this post »

Synergie says...
8:59am Thu 21 Feb 13

The reason for the protests at Fairford was the presence of eight USAF B52 bombers stationed there in 2003. No RAF planes or personnel were involved in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Report this post »

Tim Newroman says...
9:00am Thu 21 Feb 13

What a chancer. I wonder if Mr Montaut would be quite so keen for, example, the EDL to be allowed to freely campaign without any police interference?

As others have said above, any money leveraged out of the taxpayers' pocket by the people who were diverted by the police should be handed to charity.

Don't forget, it's OUR money that Mr Montaut and his comrades are lining their pockets with here.

Report this post »

Mystery Mike says...
9:05am Thu 21 Feb 13

house on the hill wrote:
The usual double standards brigade, they want a free country but don't think we should be defending it. Complete idiots and yes a charity would be the perfect place for the payouts if they truly cared for their cause.
Defence is one thing, but this was an illegal war started on the grounds that there were WMD. But did we ever find WMD? No. This is what the protesters were warning about at the time. The only reason charities like Help for Heroes had to exist is because we needlessly sent young men to fight a futile war and get mamed and killed. If we'd listened to the protesters in the first place, we probably wouldn't be in this mess.

Report this post »

Impact 7 says...
9:09am Thu 21 Feb 13

Well, that's Iraq and is not the same as Afghanistan.
It's the old chestnut of where do people's democratic rights start interfering with national security...

But regardless , Derek doesn't appear injured or traumatised so why £4k ?

Report this post »

Mystery Mike says...
9:20am Thu 21 Feb 13

Where does Afghanistan come into any of this? The money is a gesture of acceptance that human rights were breached. The protesters weren't inside the base, jumping around on planes and going for cups of tea in the RAF canteen, they were well beyond the perimeter, an area freely accessable my any member of the public so the issue of national security is a non-starter.

Report this post »

Impact 7 says...
9:22am Thu 21 Feb 13

well because you said " if we had listened to the protestors we wouldn't be in this mess..."

well, we are not in Iraq anymore so I'm assuming that's what you are referring to. What mess are we talking about ?

Report this post »

itsamess3 says...
9:29am Thu 21 Feb 13

Unless the judgment is successfully appealed the protesters will be paid.
There was plenty of evidence found of chemical and biological weapons which were indeed used by Saddams forces in an attempt to eradicate the Kurds--short memories of some.
Peaceful demonstrations that are for valid reasons are legal--we may not agree as some campaigns prevent progress.

Report this post »

Mystery Mike says...
9:29am Thu 21 Feb 13

Well I'd consider the needless loss of nearly 5000 coalition soldiers and over 100,000 civilians as well as continuing instability and hostility a bit of a mess wouldn't you?

Report this post »

Impact 7 says...
9:32am Thu 21 Feb 13

so is that Iraq or afghan ? like I say we are out the Iraq mess, it's just the other now.
Still an apology would have been enough - I say again 4k is too much by far.

Report this post »

Mystery Mike says...
9:38am Thu 21 Feb 13

Those are figures from Iraq, and we're not out of the 'mess'. The mess is still very much there, we've just turned around an run away once we'd got the oil contracts we wanted.

And 4k isn't even close to a drop in the ocean compared to the billions and billions of pounds spent on this war in the first place.

Report this post »

Fartim Poster says...
9:56am Thu 21 Feb 13

It's impressive that the police were there

Report this post »

Hmmmf says...
10:20am Thu 21 Feb 13

Mystery Mike wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
The usual double standards brigade, they want a free country but don't think we should be defending it. Complete idiots and yes a charity would be the perfect place for the payouts if they truly cared for their cause.
Defence is one thing, but this was an illegal war started on the grounds that there were WMD. But did we ever find WMD? No. This is what the protesters were warning about at the time. The only reason charities like Help for Heroes had to exist is because we needlessly sent young men to fight a futile war and get mamed and killed. If we'd listened to the protesters in the first place, we probably wouldn't be in this mess.
An illegal war started by Montaut's bosses. "We" didn't needlessly send "young men to fight a futile war", Montaut's boss did.

Report this post »

Impact 7 says...
11:00am Thu 21 Feb 13

Yes, not overlooking that at all. It was Tony B.Liar who wanted to get involved to be the US best mate .

Yes we all understand its about oil, of course it is...

However those who voted in Blair and co in 97 set in motion a chain of stupidity, bad decisions and over spending...but we are moving OT now.

Report this post »

Another view says...
11:43am Thu 21 Feb 13

I tried taking my young nephews to watch the planes but the police wouldn't let us stop because of the antics of all the protestors. Should we be compensated?

It was quite clear that life was made pretty miserable for all the locals trying to live a normal life, being invaded at the weekends. Don't they deserve the compensation? As far as I know Tony Blair operated from Westminster, not Fairford.

Report this post »

Fartim Poster says...
12:46pm Thu 21 Feb 13

According to some, it would appear that Tony Blair was elected locally and worked at Swindon Borough Council

Report this post »

RichardR1 says...
12:51pm Thu 21 Feb 13

RAF Fairford has been used by the US for years as a base to fly to other places. So the B52's being there was nothing new.

It has often been said and it is very true that upholding someones rights is aoften at the expense of anothers.

Take union marches in Swindon, they disrupt ordinary people from exercising their rights to use those streets freely, perhaps the Union should be charged a fee to distribute to the public.

Report this post »

house on the hill says...
1:22pm Thu 21 Feb 13

Richard, the so called human rights act always conveniently forgets there are 2 sides to every argument. At the time of Iraq, no one knew for sure there werent WMD, I always wondered if we hadnt gone in and they did have nukes and used one on us, how all these well informed protesters would have reacted then! If we listened to all the protesters as some would believe we should, we would probably have been overrun some time ago. We will never get it right everytime but still money for these people is well ou of order.

Report this post »

Tim Newroman says...
2:25pm Thu 21 Feb 13

Mystery Mike wrote:
Well I'd consider the needless loss of nearly 5000 coalition soldiers and over 100,000 civilians as well as continuing instability and hostility a bit of a mess wouldn't you?
Indeed, which is why so many people can never again bring themselves to vote Labour.

Oh, look, Derique 'Compo Please' Montaut is a Labour party member, supporter and councillor.

Report this post »

Oik1 says...
3:28pm Thu 21 Feb 13

"A County Court judge in London has ruled that officers acted outside their powers when they took similar action against another group at Lechlade. "

With that being the case I can understand the ruling and to me rightly so, all of us have the right to demonstrate our feelings/beliefs peacefully, this is not and never should be a police state.
As for the protesters at the time, this court finding should be more than enough to vindicate their actions on the day, lessons will have of been learned, as for financial compensation, that is perhaps a step too far, to make money from such a protest in my view is nothing more than an insult to those who were sent to Iraq to fight in such an ill equiped way at the start due to lack of funding in the first place.

Report this post »

Mystery Mike says...
4:26pm Thu 21 Feb 13

As is sending ill equipped soldiers to fight for rights that are being oppressed and denied back home. What use is fighting to defend freedom of speech if those who try to exercise that right are dragged away by police?

Also, I've seen Labour being mentioned ad-nauseum as if any other party would have done it any other way?

Report this post »

Peter Mallinson says...
4:46pm Thu 21 Feb 13

Being a 21 year veteran myself I fully support our armed forces in whatever situation they find themselves in.

It is not their place to question the merits of any action required by government.

The only people who can do this are those who are writing these comments and others like them. This includes people like Councillor Montaut.

It is often said that the reason we fought 2 world wars was to protect freedom, that includes freedom of speech and action.

What Councillor Montaut did was to exercise that right, no more.

Cllr montaut has said to me that if he gets any money awarded to him he will put it to a charity. I have suggested to him that if this happens he should think about investing it in the community he represents.

My suggestion is that he could use it to fit out a charity shop in his ward to generate an income to benefit the local people.

This would be sustainable and give a lasting benefit to all.

I think Councillor Montaut's offer should be seen for what it is, a generous offer to the local people.

Report this post »

Impact 7 says...
5:49pm Thu 21 Feb 13

well if that's the case good on him, but I would have thought he's the kind of person who wouldn't want to associate with military people at all.
Maybe he's gone up in my estimation ?

However I'd be interested to learn how many if his fellow peace activists are claiming benefits as I'd expect them to be stopped if they receive a 4k windfall.

Report this post »

RichardR1 says...
5:56pm Thu 21 Feb 13

So why hasn't he said it himself.?

Report this post »

Peter Mallinson says...
6:14pm Thu 21 Feb 13

Sorry RichardR1, maybe I have jumped the gun.

Give him time, it is full council tonight and it is the budget. So I think his mind is on other things!!

Report this post »

MrAngry says...
9:07pm Thu 21 Feb 13

Protesters in Nottingham are being sued for £5,000,000.

http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-england-not
tinghamshire-2153793
9

Report this post »

Tim Newroman says...
9:28pm Thu 21 Feb 13

Mystery Mike wrote:
As is sending ill equipped soldiers to fight for rights that are being oppressed and denied back home. What use is fighting to defend freedom of speech if those who try to exercise that right are dragged away by police?

Also, I've seen Labour being mentioned ad-nauseum as if any other party would have done it any other way?
That's no excuse and no argument.

The fact is the it was Labour, under Blair and Brown, who took the nation into these wars, ill-equipped and under-resourced.

It might not fit with your agenda, but it was the Labour party and the Labour government that cost our troops their lives. Nobody else.

Report this post »

Big Boss Man says...
10:00pm Thu 21 Feb 13

Tim Newroman wrote:
Mystery Mike wrote:
As is sending ill equipped soldiers to fight for rights that are being oppressed and denied back home. What use is fighting to defend freedom of speech if those who try to exercise that right are dragged away by police?

Also, I've seen Labour being mentioned ad-nauseum as if any other party would have done it any other way?
That's no excuse and no argument.

The fact is the it was Labour, under Blair and Brown, who took the nation into these wars, ill-equipped and under-resourced.

It might not fit with your agenda, but it was the Labour party and the Labour government that cost our troops their lives. Nobody else.
Of course it is a justified argument.

Are you the same Tim Newroman fearured on this topic

http://www.talkswind
on.org/index.php/top
ic,9176.msg90409/top
icseen.html#msg90409


That might explain your agenda

Report this post »

Tim Newroman says...
9:47am Fri 22 Feb 13

Yes, somebody copied my comments, along with some others - the person in question frequently thinks that people who don't agree with him are all the same person, I think it's a 'condition' he has.

Labour did mess up the economy and Brown was the worst chancellor and prime minister the country's ever seen.

There is no 'agenda', merely highlighting how absymal the Labour government was and how they ruined this country forever.

Report this post »

house on the hill says...
12:56pm Fri 22 Feb 13

So you dont think the Thatcher way of "greed is good" harmed the Country then? Every business looked at how they could slash costs and staff and makes as much money as they could as quickly as they could without caring about anyone else. We now have massive multinationals who are more rich and poweful that some governments and numerous businesses owned by "venture capitalists" out for a quick buck with no long term views. Politicians of any colour are no better than each other, they just screw up in different ways but all with the same end result, we lose!

Report this post »

Tim Newroman says...
5:17pm Fri 22 Feb 13

Thatcher hasn't been in power for over 22 years. She did some good things and she did some less than desirable things.

But if you think greed and people looking to make as much money as they could was a human trait that Thatcher invented, I'd say you're quite spectacularly wide of the mark. She hardly created the concept of selfishness.

Regardless, anything Thatcher did could quite easily have been undone, or changed, if people wanted to. Unfortunately, the things Labour did to destroy this country can never, ever be put right. It's too late.

Report this post »

RichardR1 says...
6:18pm Fri 22 Feb 13

House, so you believe creating one of the strongest economies in the world, increasing individual wealth of those who were prepared to work was against the interests of the country. We were still at number 4 in the world rankings in 1997 when Labour came to power, where are we now.

Depending on which measure we are 6th or 7th. Hardly an achievement.

Report this post »

RichardR1 says...
12:48pm Sat 23 Feb 13

Well Peter did he give the money to charity.

Report this post »

Peter Mallinson says...
3:46pm Sat 23 Feb 13

He has not got the money yet so is in no position to give it.

He has confirmed what I said about investing in a charity shop in his ward.

We in the Walcot shop will give him all our support and assistance.

It is far better to invest the money to earn more money than to just give it away.

Good luck to him.

Report this post »

dglaholm says...
11:30am Sun 24 Feb 13

Is this the Judge that said ''to deport Abu Hamza to the US would be a breach of his human rights''.
Tha aside its a great idea to support another charity shp like the one in Walcot as its a beacon of success that also kept the ocal lbrary from closing.

Report this post »

dglaholm says...
11:30am Sun 24 Feb 13

Is this the Judge that said ''to deport Abu Hamza to the US would be a breach of his human rights''.
Tha aside its a great idea to support another charity shp like the one in Walcot as its a beacon of success that also kept the local lbrary from closing.

Report this post »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree