Subscriptions
Read our Monthly Magazine
And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system
The Government’s so-called ‘independent’ adviser on domestic extremism has singled out defence companies and energy providers for protections through draconian new anti-protest measures – while himself being a paid lobbyist for organisations representing arms and fossil fuel giants.
John Woodcock – now known as Lord Walney – states in a new Government commissioned review of protest groups that “Defence companies and energy providers that are vital to local economies, national security and resilience are being particularly targeted by extreme protest groups” adding that “they are fringe groups with few supporters yet are causing significant damage. “Far too little is in place to support businesses and industries that are impacted by disruption or targeted by extreme activists blocking their premises and causing criminal damage.”
He calls for the Government to consider bringing in new measures allowing businesses to sue protest organisers for damages on the grounds of ‘disruption’ caused to their business.
“Defence companies and energy providers that are vital to local economies, national security and resilience are being particularly targeted by extreme protest groups. They are fringe groups with few supporters yet are causing significant damage”, he states.
Don’t miss a story
“The Government should consider ways to ensure increased resilience of supply for defence manufacturers and energy providers whose operations are being disrupted by illegal protest. This could include setting a protective buffer zone around certain sites or expediting injunctions on certain protestors not to enter such a Zone,” the former Labour MP writes.
As reported by Byline Times last week, Woodcock’s own House of Lords register interest declarations reveals that, among other roles, Lord Walney is:
- Paid chair of the Purpose Defence Coalition, members of which include Leonardo, one of the world’s largest arms manufacturers, with “extensive links” to Israel’s military. Leonardo has been targeted by Palestine Action, which is mentioned over 100 times in the report
- Paid adviser to lobbyists Rud Pederson, clients of which include the oil and gas giant, Glencore.
- Paid adviser to the Purpose Business Coalition, members of which include fossil fuel giant BP.
Lord Walney even mentions BP by name in his review, critically writing: “Since the submission of this report, a new UK-based protest group identifying itself as Energy Embargo for Palestine forced the British Museum to close. Its leadership published a statement on the leftwing Jacobin website demanding the museum sever ties with BP after Israel granted the company gas exploration licences off the coast of Gaza. A banner displayed by the group read ‘Sponsored by BP=Sponsored by Colonial Genocide’.”
The former Labour MP does not mention his business interests in the report.
The Conservative Government adviser also visited Israel in January this year, funded by Elnet, an NGO promoting cooperation between Europe and Israel. It was founded in 2007 as a European pro-Israel advocacy group, to counter “widespread criticism of Israel in Europe”.
According to NGO Action on Armed Violence, Purpose Defence Coalition member Leonardo “equips Israel with Aermacchi M-346 aircraft and parts for Apache attack helicopters” while the “company’s site in Edinburgh is responsible for producing the laser targeting system used in F-35 fighter jets”.
‘Huge Victory for Democracy’ as Rishi Sunak’s Protest Crackdown Found Unlawful by High Court
The Home Office unlawfully gave police the powers to intervene against protests where no serious disruption was taking place, the court found
Walney also calls for new powers to force protest groups to pay towards policing of their own protests and for police forces to be able to restrict the “frequency” of protests on the grounds of costs.
Tim Crosland, director of the climate group Plan B, told Byline Times: “This is not an independent report. Lord Walney is a paid lobbyist for the defence and energy industries. He is recommending more protection for defense and energy companies and more repression for those exposing the immense harm they are causing to the public, not just in terms of health but also in twisting the discourse.
“The commentary has focused on Lord Walney, but no one has questioned why he is presenting this as an independent report to the public. The Home Secretary must have done due diligence, but he is still a paid lobbyist. The report was commissioned by James Cleverley and sponsored by the Home Office.
“The right to protest is a universal right, and charging for policing would be the privatization of our basic rights. Many people are not in a position to take those risks and would be unable to participate in our politics.
“This approach seems to stem from the perceived success of some of the injunctions around Insulate Britain taken out by e.g. Transport for London, which have been extremely harsh, costing tens to hundreds of thousands of pounds in some cases.
“This seems to be a way to silence people, but it doesn’t seem very practical. How would it work in practice? This idea makes rights and justice inaccessible, allowing those with deeper pockets to dominate.”
Following our report, the Green Party MP Caroline Lucas raised a point of order with the House of Commons Speaker on Tuesday.
“This morning the Home Office commissioned report from Lord Walney was presented in Parliament using the motion for unopposed return procedure, effectively protecting it from any kind of legal challenge”, Lucas said.
“However, the report reads as a highly political document and it includes proposals, for example, for very serious restrictions on civil liberties and human rights…
“I understand… Lord Walney’s interests as a paid advisor for the arms and oil industry are registered in the Register of Lords interests. But could you advise the House… whether it would be at least healthy for scrutiny for that to be an additional requirement for any relevant interests by report’s author to be specifically flagged for this house as well?”
In the same official review of protest groups, Woodcock argues: “Brute force must not be allowed to win the argument.” But he backs tougher enforcement by police that would in many cases prevent public displays of disagreement taking plays.
The crossbench peer calls on the Government to “expand the grounds on which a police force can recommend a march is not permitted to go ahead on a particular date beyond the narrow grounds that it risks serious public disorder,” representing a major additional restriction on the right to protest.
Walney also supports a “broadening” of the definition of “encouraging terrorism” to include anyone who praises a terrorist group, likely meaning anyone sporting logos or espousing slogans shared by groups like Hamas would face prison.
And he backs shifting the balance of resource requirements of policing the public’s right to protest “with other frontline priorities” – in order to reduce the “frequency” of some protests, effectively banning or limiting the weekly Palestinian solidarity protests that have taken place in London since October.