The Mayor of London is taking legal action to remove peace protesters camping in Parliament Square.

Over the past few weeks many tents and flags have transformed the green into what protesters have called Democracy Village.

They include anti-war protester Brian Haw, who has previously won legal battles to be allowed to continue his demonstration outside Parliament.

Boris Johnson has now decided to begin trespass proceedings at the High Court.

Protesters are expected to attend court to fight the injunction.

In 2007 it was made illegal to hold an unauthorised protest within a square mile of Parliament.

A spokesman for the mayor said: "Parliament Square is a world heritage site and top tourist attraction that is visited by thousands of people and broadcast around the world each day.
Continue reading the main story

"The mayor respects the right to demonstrate, however the scale and impact of the protest is now doing considerable damage to the square and preventing its peaceful use by other Londoners, including those who may wish to have an authorised protest."

One protester, Chris Knight, said: "I think it is an absolute scandal, it's a disgrace.

"He [Boris Johnson] should be supporting democracy, not opposing it.

"If Boris wins this case it means freedom of speech, freedom of assembly will be put in the dustbin.

"I'd rather he was put in the dustbin."

The move has been welcomed by Westminster City Council whose leader, Councillor Colin Barrow, has accused the protesters of "hijacking" the square.

A spokesman for the mayor said: "Parliament Square is a world heritage site and top tourist attraction that is visited by thousands of people and broadcast around the world each day.

Don't they think that a 'democracy camp' like that would make the location even more of a tourist attraction? Or even better, just put a fence round them, with signs saying 'London Zoo Temporary Display- The Protester' and follow it with bits of information, like feeding patterns and breeding habits?

If you can't protest at parliament then where can you?

A lot of the protests are problems from around the world (Tamil Tigers etc)......

..... MOVE THEM ON ........... imo

In 2007 it was made illegal to hold an unauthorised protest within a square mile of Parliament.

Maybe if people felt like their MPs actually took their concerns on board when they wrote letters, they wouldn't feel the need to take direct action or organise mass protests through London.

Personally I hope all the noise can be heard in both Houses of Parliament, just to remind those inside what they're there for and who they're representing (clue: not themselves).

A High Court judge has ruled that peace protesters camping in Parliament Square must be evicted by 1600 BST on Friday.

Since May, tents and flags have transformed the green into what demonstrators call Democracy Village.

Mayor of London Boris Johnson, who brought the action, said the camp caused "considerable damage" and added that he was "pleased" with the ruling.

But some protesters have vowed to remain in the camp beyond the Friday deadline.

Following the decision two protesters from the camp were arrested for trespass when they tried to force their way into the grounds of Parliament.

The men, who were arrested just before 1800 BST, remain in custody, a Metropolitan Police spokesman said.

'Influx of protesters'

The judge said veteran anti-war campaigner Brian Haw, who has lived at the site since 2001, had been camping lawfully but added that an injunction was necessary as the mayor had not agreed to the occupation.

Mr Justice Griffith Williams said: "As the terms of the injunction make it clear that he can continue to use a tent or similar structure provided he has the permission of the mayor, I would expect the mayor not to enforce the injunction against him until his application for permission has been considered."

But Quentin Cross, one of the protesters from Democracy Village who now faces eviction, said he will stay put.

"I will not be moving now or after Friday voluntarily, and I would say the majority of people here hold that view.

"I don't believe in violent resistance by any means but if you are protesting about government policy then you have a right to be here.

"You might well see an influx in the next couple of days," he added.

Green Party Assembly Member Jenny Jones said the ruling was "at the cost of democracy".

She said: "The lack of police presence showed that the protesters were not causing a problem, yet the mayor was dogmatic in pursuing an expensive legal process."

The judge said that in reaching his decision the mayor "directed himself correctly, considered all the relevant matters and reached a reasoned decision which cannot be criticised".

He ruled there was a pressing social need not to permit an indefinite camped protest on the site to allow others to campaign there.

He noted public health concerns over the site, including the lack of sanitation.

And the judge said there had been vandalism and unlawful behaviour associated with the camp.

'Unlawful behaviour'

The delayed eviction date is to give protesters the time to lodge an appeal against the ruling.

A spokeswoman for Mr Johnson said: "The mayor respects the right to demonstrate - however, the scale and impact of the protest has caused damage to the square and has prevented its peaceful use by other Londoners.

"Parliament Square is a top tourist attraction visited by thousands of people and is broadcast around the world each day.

"We would urge the protesters to respect the court's ruling and now leave the site peacefully."

Protesters had claimed only the Queen had the right to bring such proceedings in relation to the London square.

Mr Johnson had argued he had the right as the Greater London Authority owns the green space.

Colin Barrow, leader of Westminster City Council, said: "We feel that the hijacking of Parliament Square, one of London's historic public spaces, needed to be brought to an end."

I was under the impression that a judge had already ruled that Mr Hawe's peace camp wasn't affected by the 2007 ruling, as it only applied to new protests. As he had been campaigning continuously and prior to the ruling, the law didn't affect him.

Protesters had claimed only the Queen had the right to bring such proceedings in relation to the London square.