The fashion designer, Dame Vivienne Westwood, turned model this morning in a protest over the injunction acquired by the shale gas company, INEOS Upstream.
Along with her son, Joe Corre, and other campaigners, she took to a temporary catwalk near the INEOS head office in Knightsbridge, London.
Dressed in dresses and t-shirts with words Fracking Climate Chaos, the models carried “Frack Off INEOS” placards.
Dame Vivienne with son, Joe Corre, centre, 15 February 2018. Photo: Talk Fracking
The injunction, confirmed at the High Court in December 2017, outlaws many forms of anti-fracking protest, including slow-walking and lorry surfing.
It is directed against “persons unknown” and prohibits interference in the lawful activities of INEOS staff and contractors. People who breach the injunction order risk up to two years in prison, a fine of up to £5,000 or seizure of their assets.
The INEOS London headquarters and seven other sites are covered by the injunction.
Models on the catwalk near INEOS headquarters, 15 February 2018. Photo: Talk Fracking
Last month, Mr Corre and another anti-fracking campaigner, Joe Boyd, lodged papers with the Court of Appeal seeking to challenge the injunction. The court is currently considering their appeal request.
Mr Corre, who is represented by Bhatt Murphy solicitors, said today:
“People respect the law because they believe the law is there to protect them. If the law is able to be bought by corporations, if they are able to game the system to turn the law against us, then people will no longer respect the law. It’s as simple as that.
“Effectively, what INEOS has tried to do is add an additional layer of law on top of the laws we already have in this country that can make it an imprisonable offence, up to two years in prison, for standing up to them and protesting and exercising your human rights and your democratic right to protest against their activity.”
Joe Boyd, the other challenger to the injunction, said:
“The High Court judgment has wide ranging impacts on not only those involved in the campaign against climate change and fossil fuels, but also anyone who wishes to express opposition against any potentially controversial industry.
“I don’t think that people should be constrained to banner waving and petition signing in order to protect the environment and the health of their families and future generations. I very much hope the Court of Appeal will agree to review the current injunction and properly uphold our right to peacefully protest, a core value in this country’s democratic history.”
Rosa Curling, solicitor at law firm Leigh Day, representing Mr Boyd, said:
“Free speech and a right to peacefully protest is at the heart of any effective democracy. The current injunction, which we are seeking to challenge in the Court of Appeal, has wide-ranging implications that reach far beyond any debate around the environmental damage of fracking.
“This case represents the right that all of us have to stand up and say that we don’t agree with something without facing the fear of arrest and imprisonment.”
INEOS tweeted this evening:
“As today clearly shows, our injunctions prohibit unlawful acts by protesters and in no way impinge on the right to peaceful protest.”
The company said in a statement:
INEOS noted with interest today’s event outside its London offices.
Since 2017 various anti-shale groups have claimed that INEOS’ recent legal action has made all protest unlawful in the UK. This is not the case, as today clearly shows. Our injunctions prohibit unlawful acts by protesters and in no way impinge on the right to peaceful protest. These injunctions simply protect INEOS and our people from hardcore activists who game the system and treat the law with contempt.
But the key message here is that if shale gas proves to be successful in the UK it provides the UK economy with highly competitive energy and it provides enormous levels of investment and jobs in the North of England where they are desperately needed.
Manufacturing jobs are not created without investment and there is precious little investment in the North of England in manufacturing.
She is a celebrity and playing for attention to get noticed.
They look cold, I wonder if the models (horrible word in any context for human beings, it implies soulless and autonomous toys) were themselves there for own personal beliefs? I would have perhaps asked them individually to express their individual views on the matter?
I am not overly appreciative of the blank faced mannequin strut that such displays portray, more like dehumanised clothes horses rather than human beings?
I am also not overly convinced, you may be surprised to know, of the relevance of this display, but I would rather tell the truth than just approve, or not, by default just because I oppose fracking and it’s associated poisonous activities.
I can see it is perhaps a headline grabber and I appreciate the contributions from Joe Corre and Joe Boyd, whose actions I do support.
However I do get concerned that headline grabbing just for the sake of it, is just trivialising the issue?
This event has seemed to illicit a great deal of anti anti attention, but that is perhaps because that such shallow statements attract even more shallow comments?
Protesters stage a legal protest to demonstrate it is now not legal to protest………….
Ah the rich preaching to the masses.
If Vivien new and the models had catwalk ed next to an Infosys shale site. Would they have tweeted the same?
We need all the faces (famous or otherwise) to help fight this cause
Fortunately for the anti frackers. UK shale is chasing its own shadow. So many delays and hurdles plus its inability to deliver its economic viability will squash it before it can take off.
how much oil has been used in the manufacture of their clothes and make up ?
Good grief; and what the hell did we wear before oil?
Disagree with you on that TW. Current companies about to frack are just the “sappers”. Once they have helped to clear the way, the main force will push on. (Of course, all dependent upon economic resources being discovered.)
At this stage, the precautionary principle that the antis love,is in play in terms of planning etc. but if/when the tests are completed without hiccup, then the processes will be accelerated. Remember, there used to be a guy with a red flag walking in front of motor cars!
There is an irony here. The fashion industry is one of the most wasteful regarding consumption of natural resources and workers rights. The back drop of Harrods – which represents the desire for consumption of luxury goods, particularly by the wealthy, is the icing on the cake to this ridiculous stunt!
Fortunately, things are changing Dr Nick:
Sherwulfe – that’s good to see. Surely she has such a task in her own industry would it not be better and more effective if she concentrated on that? Or should I go and do stunts and demonstrate about an industry I know little about? By the way the 2nd link you posted does load – but my virus checker blocked loads of associated content as dangerous.
I believe the lady has retired as such so fills her time helping those causes she feels just. For this I admire her.
Many are critical of celebrities as the live ‘that lifestyle’ and then turn on it; but isn’t that the same for us all? Ignorance is a blight on our civilization, the enlightenment of the truth serves to turn the tide, eventually the better choices become normalized due the the actions of those who are able to bring the truth to the surface (no mean feat when those who perpetuate the lies are prepared to go to extreme levels to keep their treasure caves full). Many of the suffragists were from wealthy families, their aim was to get the vote for themselves, as an extension all women eventually got the vote.
The industry itself is changing fast. This I know. Again like the turn to sustainable energy, it takes time due to the spider’s web of trade and deals, investors and profit; change it will, normal they both will become.
Regarding the second link, is there a point to your mentioning it? Anyone else would just contact the website/google/microsoft and reported it.
“Regarding the second link, is there a point to your mentioning it? Anyone else would just contact the website/google/microsoft and reported it.” As indeed you did? I was trying to be helpful.
Sorry Nicky, was not my anti-virus that pertained to flag up dangerous content; this time the responsibility is yours. Be helpful, deal with it and stick to the point.
Back to my point Scherwulfe. Irony. There are far more dangerous and widespread things than Fracking that most people in this country will be exposed to daily. Like yourself – not having effective virus protection on your computer as just one of many examples. Not fracking, nor chemtrails, or fluoridised water (do you drink Assam tea?). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jne9t8sHpUc
…and whilst we are at it. It is ironic that a 4.4 Mag quake, like the one in Wales yesterday does no significant damage, yet the anti-frackers have major neurosis about a 2.1 induced by fracking, and made many false claims about damage & distress. The former is @200 times bigger than a 2.1 & releases 2818 times more energy . I repeat, there are many more dangerous things that our population is exposed to daily than fracking.
You’re so funny, not, Nicky…..stop trying to apportion blame where there is none. My virus checker is just fine, thanks. Be resilient, take it on the chin and get over it.
P.S How come I’ve suddenly turned into a German?
And to your second pop, will leave this to those more qualified, if they bother to back read this to discuss the like for like, or not comparisons; as you have clearly not spoken to anyone who suffered damages from the 2.1 induced by fracked (pleased you have confirmed this) would worry about your last statement.
These people got a cheap thrill in your book…..
…and by the way, I just need to point out that feed ins and associated content on websites are based on the user’s historical browsing history, consumer preferences….just saying.
You chose german eponomy in your avatar name see http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/1/Wulfe.
I actually have talked to someone who claimed they had damage to a property in Lancaster by the 2.1 at Blackpool earthquake. Clearly impossible with energy release and distance.
This is getting tedious.
gosh, are you still here?
Sherwulf – you are also still here – that is ironic!!!
Once again you misunderstood the question…….
Uk shale prospect is bearish.