Indiscriminate killing: Mourners pray at the funeral for more than 15 people, including several children and women, killed in an Israeli strike, at Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital in Deir al-Balah at the weekend
THE number of aid workers killed in conflict zones more than doubled last year, the UN reported today.
Its Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs said that 280 aid workers were killed in 33 countries in 2023, compared to 118 in 2022.
Over half the killings took place in Gaza following Israel’s invasion, which began in October following a Hamas cross-border attack, with the majority of these down to Israeli air strikes, the office said.
Israel’s military has been accused of deliberately murdering aid workers, with the killing of seven working for World Central Kitchen on April 1 causing headlines around the world because they included US, Canadian, British and Australian citizens.
It has also been accused of attempting to starve Gaza by blocking or delaying aid convoys. Its National Security Minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, caused uproar in June when he told police not to interfere with mobs attacking aid convoys headed for Gaza.
THE number of aid workers killed in conflict zones more than doubled last year, the UN reported today.
Its Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs said that 280 aid workers were killed in 33 countries in 2023, compared to 118 in 2022.
Over half the killings took place in Gaza following Israel’s invasion, which began in October following a Hamas cross-border attack, with the majority of these down to Israeli air strikes, the office said.
Israel’s military has been accused of deliberately murdering aid workers, with the killing of seven working for World Central Kitchen on April 1 causing headlines around the world because they included US, Canadian, British and Australian citizens.
It has also been accused of attempting to starve Gaza by blocking or delaying aid convoys. Its National Security Minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, caused uproar in June when he told police not to interfere with mobs attacking aid convoys headed for Gaza.
Original article by Ed Siddons , Billie Gay Jackson republished from TBIJ under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0.
DLA Piper’s demands from campaigners included £2,500 for a list of its own fees
The UK’s largest law firm sought £1.1m in legal fees from climate campaigners to cover the costs of preventing their protests, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism can reveal.
DLA Piper, a multibillion-pound law firm, tried to recoup eye-watering costs, including fees of £350 per hour for providing legal advice to its clients HS2 and National Highways Limited (NHL) – both publicly owned bodies. Other costs it tried to reclaim included £75,000 for a single hearing and £2,500 to prepare a document listing its own fees.
The firm brought injunctions – court orders prohibiting certain actions – against more than 200 campaigners, primarily from Just Stop Oil and Insulate Britain. Most obeyed the NHL injunction and did not take part in the prohibited protests, but still each faced bills of thousands of pounds.
In two of the cases, judges criticised the firm’s costs as “disproportionate” or “not … reasonable” and significantly reduced the amount it could claim, in one case by more than half.
Barristers told TBIJ that costs incurred by City law firms such as DLA Piper far exceed those incurred by in-house solicitors at public bodies or local authorities, ratcheting up the risk of large costs being foisted onto protestors.
DLA Piper has previously pledged to align its client work with “decisive action” on climate and committed to net zero by 2040.
The firm was hired by NHL and the HS2 rail project in 2021 to provide legal services that included securing injunctions against protesters.
Court files reviewed by TBIJ show that, on behalf of NHL and HS2, the firm sought costs from protesters totalling £1.1m. This figure, and the breakdowns below, include barristers’ fees – money paid to specialist external lawyers selected to argue the case in court.
One woman who broke the injunction told TBIJ that her income meant it would take her eight years to pay off the costs of around £5,000 that had been sought against her.
Another of those targeted was Louise Lancaster, who continued to protest and received a 42-day suspended sentence in 2022 alongside an order to pay £22,000 in costs. Last month, she was jailed for four years for coordinating protests on the M25.
The award of a portion of legal costs to the winning side is standard procedure in civil court cases.
But although the lengthy sentences handed down to a small group of protesters in July made headlines, the combination of criminal charges with civil injunction proceedings and potential costs orders was highlighted as a “grave concern” by the UN special rapporteur on environmental defenders.
Adam Wagner, a barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, said: “You might have a protester who, for the same action, is convicted of a criminal offence, has an injunction taken out against them with the risk of contempt-of-court proceedings if they breach it, and faces huge costs. It’s like triple jeopardy.
“We don’t take that approach to social ills like gang violence or drug dealing – they are dealt with through the criminal courts [alone] … Nobody’s looking at the wider picture and thinking, ‘Could this actually have gone too far?’”
“The threat of costs in injunction proceedings is one of, if not the, biggest chilling effects on protests in Britain at the moment,” said Paul Powlesland, a barrister at Garden Court Chambers and founder of the environmental pressure group Lawyers For Nature.
The use of injunctions has soared in recent years with the rise of civil disobedience groups such as Just Stop Oil and Insulate Britain. Analysis by the BBC found that 1,200 locations across the UK are now subject to injunctions banning protests.
They have also increased in scope. Traditionally, injunctions prevented named individuals from undertaking a course of action, but new “persons unknown” injunctions mean anyone can be punished for breaking them.
Proceedings take place in civil courts, where costs can be huge and initial injunction proceedings do not qualify for legal aid. The majority of campaigners subject to the National Highways injunctions had no legal representation and feared the potential costs. The result is that wealthy people who want to bully peaceful protesters “can do so with impunity,” Powlesland said.
The largest single sum sought by DLA Piper was £727,573.84, which covered multiple claims on behalf of NHL against around 140 protesters who blocked the M25 and surrounding roads. That sum was eventually reduced by a judge to £580,000, and a later settlement offer sought about £3,000 from each campaigner to end the case.
DLA Piper also pursued a further £75,891.84 from protesters who disputed the renewal of the injunction.
Banners at the Bluebell Woods Protection Camp, an anti-HS2 protest site, in Staffordshire in 2021. An injunction later made protest illegal along the length of the HS2 railway line Martin Pope/Getty Images
In separate proceedings, at which NHL pursued 12 protesters for contempt of court after they broke the M25 injunctions, an offence that can mean jail time, DLA Piper listed £229,525.35 in costs, bringing the total to around £1m.
On behalf of Hs2, DLA Piper pursued £70,216 in costs against five defendants, all of whom broke injunctions.
Jodie Beck, policy and campaigns officer at Liberty, said: “Injunctions operate alongside an already expansive web of restrictions and criminal offences introduced in recent years, carrying hefty penalties for making your voice heard.
“When powerful companies and state-owned bodies use opaque legal processes and the threat of financial ruin with eye-watering costs being passed on, our fundamental right to protest is at risk.”
DLA Piper is not the only City law firm to have threatened protesters with costs orders. It is not known how much money it ultimately succeeded in recouping.
As well as its green pledges, the firm has boasted of its role as official provider of legal services to COP26 and highlighted its position as a founding member of the Legal Sustainability Alliance and the Net Zero Lawyers Alliance initiatives.
A DLA Piper spokesperson said: “The firm supports the right to protest lawfully and recognises the need to build a sustainable future. But any change must be brought around in compliance with the law, for the protection of the country and protestors.
The firm is one of the world’s largest legal advisers to the renewable energy industry and is recognised for advising on more renewable energy deals and projects than any other law firm.”
A NHL spokesperson said: “Protesting on motorways and major A-roads is extremely dangerous for both the protesters and motorists … These orders are intended to dissuade people from risking lives, not to prohibit lawful protest. As a government-owned company funded by public money, costs recovery is an important aspect of ensuring public funds are protected.”
A spokesperson for HS2 Ltd said: “We support the right to lawful protest. We have only taken legal action where there has been illegal direct action against HS2. Unlawful action against HS2 has cost taxpayers over £150m and put the lives of protestors, the public and our own workforce in great danger.
“Since the High Court granted a route wide injunction to protect the HS2 project from unlawful activity we have seen a significant decline in illegal activity.”
In June, DLA Piper was awarded a further contract worth more than £650,000 by NHL to provide legal services relating to injunctions against protestors.
Photo: Climate protesters block the M25 as part of a campaign intended to push the UK government to make significant legislative change to start lowering emissions. Credit: Mark Kerrison/Alamy Live News
Reporters: Ed Siddons and Billie Gay Jackson Additional reporting: Simon Lock Deputy editors: Katie Mark and Chrissie Giles Enablers editor: Eleanor Rose Impact producer: Lucy Nash Editor: Franz Wild Production editor: Frankie Goodway Fact checker: Somesh Jha
Our Enablers project is funded by the Hollick Family Foundation, Sigrid Rausing Trust, the Joffe Trust, the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project and TBIJ core funds. None of our funders has any influence over our editorial decisions or output.
Original article by Ed Siddons , Billie Gay Jackson republished from TBIJ under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0.
Mark Smith said he had been the lead author of the central assessment governing the legality of UK arms sales to the Middle East
The British civil servant who resigned over concerns that the government is complicit in Israeli war crimes in Gaza has said he was formerly the lead author of the central assessment governing the legality of UK arms sales in the Foreign Office’s Middle East and North Africa Directorate.
Diplomat Mark Smith’s resignation was first reported when prominent journalist Hind Hassan posted the contents of his resignation letter on X on Friday evening. On Saturday Middle East Eye confirmed the resignation through two sources familiar with the situation.
…
In a statement issued on Sunday, Smith added that he was the lead author of the central assessment governing the legality of UK arms sales in the Middle East and North Africa Directorate.
He said: “It was my job to gather all relevant information regarding civilian casualties, international law compliance as well as assess the commitment and capabilities of the countries in question.”
“To export arms to any nation, the UK must be satisfied that the recipient nation has in place robust procedures to avoid civilian casualties and to minimize harm to civilian life. It is impossible to argue that Israel is doing that.”
It is unclear when Smith, who appears to have been at the British embassy in Dublin since at least 2022, was in this role.
Smith said he has written to Foreign Secretary David Lammy informing him of his resignation.
“I sincerely hope that he will listen to the concerns of Civil Servants on this issue and make the necessary changes.”
UK Labour Party Shadow Foreign Secretary repeatedly heckled at a speech to the Fabian Society over his and the Labour Party’s support for and complicity in Israel’s genocide of Gaza.
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper during a walk through Lewisham town centre, in south London, as part of a visit to speak about neighbourhood policing and meet with policing teams, July 8, 2024
…
Cooper cites both far-right and Islamist hate. But political Islam has no profile in Britain at all. She, like Lord Walney, seeks to lump violent fascist riots together with the peaceful Palestine solidarity movement, whose mass demos have been slandered as “hate marches” by the Tories, right-wing media and fascist agitators such as Tommy Robinson.
Where jihadist violence has reached Britain, it has had more to do with our state’s hyper-violent foreign policy than online grooming. The deadliest terror attack of the last decade, that on the Manchester Arena by Salman Abedi in 2017, was carried out by a man our government had helped travel to Libya to fight in a British-backed Islamist revolt against its government, and whose return to Britain was facilitated by MI5.
A state campaign against extremism “across the political spectrum” will reinforce the clampdowns on protest rights and free speech associated with the Conservatives.
That Labour’s current leadership will deploy it to silence left criticism seems predictable given their record: this is the party that banned its branches from discussing the suspension of its former leader Jeremy Corbyn on the ludicrous grounds that this would make Jewish members feel unsafe.
Bans on “fake news” could only be welcomed if we had total confidence in the objectivity and fairness of those sifting the truth from the lies. X, Facebook and indeed the British state are not objective. There is no way such a ban would not simply become a form of political censorship exercised by the ruling class.
John Mason at the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh, April 30, 2024
AN SNP MSP has had the whip removed following “utterly abhorrent” comments about the Israel-Hamas conflict.
The party confirmed it has taken action following social media comments from Glasgow Shettleston MSP John Mason.
Party officials said that the whip has been removed with “immediate effect” after he posted: “If Israel wanted to commit genocide, they would have killed ten times as many.”
He made the comment amid a row over a meeting between Israel’s deputy ambassador Daniela Grudsky and Scottish External Affairs Secretary Angus Robertson.
Removing the whip from Mr Mason, a party spokesperson said: “To flippantly dismiss the death of more than 40,000 Palestinians is completely unacceptable.
“There can be no room in the SNP for this kind of intolerance.
“The chief whip has today withdrawn the whip from John Mason MSP with immediate effect, pending internal parliamentary group due process.
