Last May, Real Media covered the launch of a government report Protecting our Democracy from Coercion, by Lord Walney – the UK’s supposedly independent adviser on “political violence and disruption” – who was appointed by Boris Johnson two years ago. The launch was hosted by the Counter Extremism Network Ltd., which does not reveal the source of its considerable funding.
This month, during a multi-organisational pushback against the recently growing authoritarian attack on the right to protest, his position as a government advisor has come under question, and it is increasingly unclear whether his position is tenable.
The first calls for his sacking came from hundreds of campaigners after harsh prison sentences were handed down to Phoebe Plummer and Anna Holland (the Van Gogh soup protesters), but he defiantly tweeted that the new government would “not take orders from cheerleaders for criminal damage and disruption”. Within a week though, his employment was in doubt due to a listing on the London Assembly’s Police and Crime committee meeting where he was described as a former adviser, leading to press speculation and confused responses from the Home Office, first defending him and then telling The Times newspaper that his position was “under review”, citing concerns over conflict of interest.
The pressure continued with letters calling for his dismissal sent to Keir Starmer, Yvette Cooper and the Home Office by the The Good Law Project and Compassion In Politics, along with an online petition.
On Thursday this week (United Nations day), hundreds are expected to take part in a disruptive “exhibition” of political prisoners, in the road outside the Attorney General’s office in Petty France, London. They are calling for a public meeting with Labour’s new AG Lord Hermer to discuss the clampdown on protest, and for an end to the undemocratic lobbying of groups like Policy Exchange, and of Lord Walney himself, in promoting industry interests over the public’s right to protest.
The call for a meeting with Lord Hermer was first announced after the sentencing of five Just Stop Oil campaigners who were imprisoned for a total of more than 20 years for their part in organising peaceful road blockades. He replied earlier this month turning down the request, citing the importance of judicial independence and the effect any public remarks might have on ongoing legal proceedings. Given the long waiting times for hearings and appeals, this looks like kicking any meaningful engagement into the long grass.
In the meantime, the state of Lord Walney’s employment remains, like that of Schrödinger’s cat, unknown, but the pressure is on for the Home Office to “open the box”.
MORE BACKGROUND ON LORD WALNEY’S ‘INDEPENDENCE’
Lord Walney (John Woodcock) is the former chair of Friends of Israel, and has many business interests including lobbying for arms companies which export to Israel, and diverse advisory roles for European businesses, vape manufacturers and language teaching services. Nevertheless, in the report he tried to expand his employment portfolio further by recommending the establishment of a permanent paid advisory role.
Despite his many income streams, his recent visit to the Paris Paralympics was funded by the National Lottery, and he has received hospitality visits to Israel several times – the most recent courtesy of Elnet UK, whose CEO is the fiercely anti-Corbyn former chair of Labour Friends of Israel, Joan Ryan. Woodcock himself is on record as calling the then Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn a “national security risk”, and he contributes regularly to the unreliable and propagandist Jewish Chronicle.
In spite of such close associations with the Israeli state and propaganda machine, Woodcock has regularly appeared in the media espousing his ‘independent’ views. He has made public and potentially prejudicial comments describing Palestine Action’s activities as ‘criminal’, ‘vandalism’ and even akin to ‘terrorism’, ahead of trials and due process. His comments have come despite many notable cases where charges have been dropped, or juries have acquitted defendants on the basis that their actions have actually been lawful. He himself was accused of serious sexual misconduct in 2018, but it is unclear whether he has ever surrendered himself to a proper investigation process.
Over the past few years, pressure from fossil-fuel-funded and climate denial lobbyists have led to changes in protest law and new ‘clarifications’ in legal proceedings to clamp down on environmental campaigners, by both outlawing their peaceful protest activities, and by preventing them mounting any meaningful defence in trials. Lord Walney’s recommendations increased that assault on environmental groups, and also include many authoritarian recommendations which unashamedly appear to target the functioning of his pet hate, Palestine Action.
Walney claims that in his report he “consistently applies objective standards”, but he has posted his personal views of Palestine Action on social media, calling them ‘Hamas’ little helpers’ and comparing their actions (disrupting arms manufacturing and sales to a genocidal state) to those of far-right rioters (who among many violent crimes attempted to burn down a hotel housing asylum-seekers).
ISRAELI INTERFERENCE
In our 2021 documentary, Palestine Action – a year of direct action against Elbit Systems UK we revealed the then Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab’s promise given to leading Israeli government officers including Benny Gantz, that he was committed to stopping the campaign. Then last year, we covered revelations of meetings between the Attorney General’s office and Israeli representatives, during which both the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act and the Colston statue verdict were discussed. More recently, Freedom Of Information research by Palestine Action revealed further meetings and collusion between government ministers, “independent” public bodies including the Attorney General’s office, the Crown Prosecution Service and the police, and senior Elbit Systems staff. These meetings took place in 2022 and 2023, beginning at a time when there had been no successful convictions of Palestine Action supporters and continuing when juries were acquitting them.
LAWFUL DEFENCES AND THE CHILLING EFFECT
This was also when the Attorney General at the time was actively pushing to limit the lawful defences available in protest cases.
As a result of those changes in legal definitions, protesters disrupting arms manufacturers have been prevented from explaining the context their actions in front of a jury, and climate protesters have found themselves barred from even mentioning the climate in court cases, at risk of imprisonment for contempt of court.
Walney’s report makes additional recommendations aimed at limiting the influence of protest and creating a chilling effect with a range of obstacles to protest organisers. He wants to extend police covert surveillance powers to intercept phones and place listening devices in the homes and vehicles of protest organisers. He wants to enable businesses to sue protesters for disruption they cause, and wants to set up buffer zones around companies supplying arms to Israel, outlawing ANY protest nearby. Using the example of a single actual terrorist attack on Parliament he even recommends reviewing the freedom to protest in the area.
The report claims that ‘direct action’ and even ‘industrial action’ are no longer acceptable because “we live in a liberal democracy”. But the Conservative government actually tabled it under a parliamentary privileged process of “unopposed returns”, which prevents it being debated or voted on and affords it protection from libel actions. How democratic is that?
UNWORKABLE
In an extraordinary assault on dissent, despite massive public antipathy towards Israel’s genocide, he takes direct aim at the national protest marches by suggesting that protest groups should have to pay to hold repeated large assemblies and marches, and that police should be able to use Public Order powers to “restrict their frequency”.
In a speech in parliament, Clive Lewis MP described a lawyer friend’s view of the document:
He told me that it was broad, sprawling, poorly written, littered with errors, not proofread, entirely confused and, frankly, ludicrous. I shall provide an example, on which the Minister may wish to comment on. Paragraph 1.12 of the report said the Government can “convene a process to examine the potential issue of juries acquitting defendants and judges applying laws differently when they are transgressed in the name of progressive causes like climate change and anti-racism”.
We have enjoyed the right to trial by jury in this country since before Magna Carta, and this report is undermining that. It is a sham report, and I hope the Government understand that.
At the London Assembly hearing, Walney’s recommendations came under further fire, with top human rights lawyer Kirsty Brimelow KC saying that the proposal to charge money to protest showed “a real misunderstanding of Articles 10 and 11” and were unlikely to be lawful. Even the former Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Matt Parr said the idea, even if legal, was “unworkable”.
Walney claims that rights to take direct action are not relevant because we live in a modern liberal democracy, but the reality is that while the majority of the public wants a ceasefire in Gaza and a halt to support for genocide, the government is simply not acting on that, so calling for any restrictions on protests, direct action or industrial action can surely only be seen as coercion, not democracy.
