Shard owners seek to ban protest by Class War activist Ian Bone

[Sasaferrato]

Not content with having pissed of the Saudis, the Qataris are now winding up Ian Bone.

How silly of them!

Well now. On one side we have wealth and power beyond imagining. On the other a random 'class warrior'.

It is rather like a boxing match between Henry Cooper and Benny Hill.

 

[Sasaferrato]

yeh. but who actually owns which bits?

I wouldn't think that the pavement could ever be private property.

 

[Sasaferrato]

This is one of the best posts I’ve ever read on here.

Worthy of the mighty 'Eye' one feels.

 

[SpookyFrank]

'Seek' is the key word here. No one has agreed to anything at the moment.

I don't reckon they've got idiots for lawyers. If they're seeking an injunction it's because there's a good chance they'll get it.

 

[Pickman's model]

I don't reckon they've got idiots for lawyers. If they're seeking an injunction it's because there's a good chance they'll get it.

yeh just like when the police nick someone they must have good reason.

 

[Sasaferrato]

It’s worth pointing out the foreign investors angle though even if you suspect it isn’t happening in all luxury blocks standing empty. It’s people who have no intention of living in and contributing to the capital who are driving up property prices for those who can ill afford the mortgages or rents.
Attacking landlordism can be seen as a niche view held by the hard left but buying properties to leave empty as an investment is seen by more as a blatant piss take.

Well, if it was a two bed flat in a tower block, I would agree with you. Even if those multi-million pound properties were offered to the Council for renting, who could afford the rent? As always with the hard left, this is absolutely pointless. Indeed, one could consider it an act of self aggrandisement. (Or would be, if anyone outside the hard-left bubble had ever heard of him.)

 

[Fozzie Bear]

Well, if it was a two bed flat in a tower block, I would agree with you. Even if those multi-million pound properties were offered to the Council for renting, who could afford the rent? As always with the hard left, this is absolutely pointless. Indeed, one could consider it an act of self aggrandisement. (Or would be, if anyone outside the hard-left bubble had ever heard of him.)

It's up to Ian to decide how he spends his time. As usual he has done a sterling job of generating press coverage. The dynamic of Qatari millionaires against an OAP with a walking stick will resonate very well with most normal people I think.

Land in the UK is a finite and scarce resource, especially in London. Having somewhere to live is a basic human need. Highlighting millionaires land-banking whilst people are homeless or struggling to pay the rent is good and there should be more of it.

 

[DaveCinzano]

The ex-Met cop trying to stitch up Bone is a contemporary of such luminaries as John Yates (latterly an advisor to the democracy demonstration-crushing Bahraini police) and Bob ‘Does My Secret Document Look Big In This?’ Broadhurst. After not doing very well in the Daniel Morgan or Milly Dowler murder inquiries, he shifted over to the second-raters of SOCA, and then the anti-kiddie porn CEOP.

After retirement his attempts at becoming a self-employed security consultant didn't go so well. How he landed the cushy job of security chief at the Shard isn't exactly clear, but it wouldn't be any stranger than career mediocrity Sid Nicholson bagging the post of Head of Security for McDonald's UK back in the 80s after an unillustrious time spent in Special Branch.

It helps that despite being turned over by Sun and NOTW hacks during the Dowler investigation *coff* *phonehacking* he later demonstrated his absolute lack of dignity by praising the Currant Bun...

...Despite him being at (and, indeed, requesting) that awkward meeting between Morgan inquiry detective Dave Cook and Murdoch's representative on Earth, Rebekah Wade, brokered by Slippery Dick Fedorcio, when Wade tried to deny that News Corp had Cook and his wife Jacqui Hames under surveillance by Southern Investigations. Zing!

As for the private security company he commissioned the risk assessment of Bone from, VSG, that was a penny-ante little firm of gumshoes before it teamed up with - wait for it - a catering company. In 2016 it was boasting how it had secured a contract to operate the national business-facing counter terrorism information campaign Project Griffin... Which is convenient, seeing as how VSG's head of counter terrorism was, err, in charge of Project Griffin whilst at the City of London Police right up until he left for a cushy private sector job!

Now Available With Added Words (including Names)!™

Half Bakered at The Shard…

 

[tim]

Well now. On one side we have wealth and power beyond imagining. On the other a random 'class warrior'.

It is rather like a boxing match between Henry Cooper and Benny Hill.

Bone is more Tommy Cooper than Henry Cooper and an excellent provocateur, capable of causing the type of publicity and embarrassment that Gulf princlings hate

 

[paolo]

Apols if this has been covered already...

...is the injunction about the ‘public - private’ space, or the proper public bit?

 

[souljacker]

Now Available With Added Words (including Names)!™

Half Bakered at The Shard…

I've just realised who you used to be on here.

 

[DaveCinzano]

I've just realised who you used to be on here.

 

[souljacker]

Your secret is safe with me.

 

[editor]

FUCK YOU Qatari fuckers

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

I've just realised who you used to be on here.

Fucking hell, so have I

 

[dylanredefined]

I was accosted by a security guard on the concourse next to the Shard outside London Bridge, who put his hand over my camera lens while I was trying to take a picture (the cunt) and said it was private property. I found this unlikely but I didn’t argue at the time because it could well have been true.

He wasn’t from the Shard though, he was from the building on the corner, I think it’s where the Sun offices are. Which would be a bit ironic given how they love the paps.

I thought unless it's covered by the official secret act you are allowed to take photos?

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

I thought unless it's covered by the official secret act you are allowed to take photos?

AFAIK it's down to where your feet are. If you're stood on public land you're fine. But the problem is that so much of what looks like public space isn't anymore, it's privately owned.

 

[agricola]

I was accosted by a security guard on the concourse next to the Shard outside London Bridge, who put his hand over my camera lens while I was trying to take a picture (the cunt) and said it was private property. I found this unlikely but I didn’t argue at the time because it could well have been true.

He wasn’t from the Shard though, he was from the building on the corner, I think it’s where the Sun offices are. Which would be a bit ironic given how they love the paps.

Is this the concourse with the little set of steps down to the tube station, just up from the London Bridge Hotel? If so whilst it may be privately owned, its certainly open to the public so one does wonder what the justification is for stopping people filming there (as you say later it can only really be because of the News International building).

 

[Fozzie Bear]

South Norwood pensioner wins Shard legal battle with Qataris

 

[Wilf]

It's up to Ian to decide how he spends his time. As usual he has done a sterling job of generating press coverage. The dynamic of Qatari millionaires against an OAP with a walking stick will resonate very well with most normal people I think.

Land in the UK is a finite and scarce resource, especially in London. Having somewhere to live is a basic human need. Highlighting millionaires land-banking whilst people are homeless or struggling to pay the rent is good and there should be more of it.

This. It's hardly likely to be a game changer in itself, but this kind of campaign is well judged, publicity friendly and hits all the right notes, particularly allied with Grenfell. Also, fair play to Ian himself. I'm sure he wouldn't want anybody banging on about his ill health though I think it's well known. But even so, my Dad having just died of the same condition, I'm full of admiration.

edit: I'll let myself off, he himself mentions his Parkinson's in the original story:
Shard owners seek to ban protest by Class War activist

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I thought unless it's covered by the official secret act you are allowed to take photos?

The photography isn’t illegal, but on private property they can ask you to leave and it would iirc be aggravated trespass if you refused.

Is this the concourse with the little set of steps down to the tube station, just up from the London Bridge Hotel? If so whilst it may be privately owned, its certainly open to the public so one does wonder what the justification is for stopping people filming there (as you say later it can only really be because of the News International building).

The area to the left as you come up the escalators, when the Shard is to your right. I was there this afternoon as it happens and there are bollards around it now and a little covered staircase down to the tube.

Unfortunately a lot of PAPS areas do set photography regulations regardless of how public they are. They’re only vaguely enforced and I’m not aware of any actual legal action but you do get people asked to leave, and just the experience is aggravating. I got questioned by a security guard at Gasholder Park not too long ago who asked me if I was doing commercial photography while I was literally setting up a fucking pinhole camera - yeah, big market for weird blurry pictures of nothing much, you got me mate. He was perfectly polite but it pissed me off enough to ruin that afternoon.

It would seem bizarre that the space outside the entrance to a major national rail station was privately owned but I really would not put it past them; I was also relatively close (I was shooting upwards to take some abstract architectural shots of the corner of the News UK building, which I have done before without problems but it may not have had tenants as evil).

 

[Pickman's model]

The photography isn’t illegal, but on private property they can ask you to leave and it would iirc be aggravated trespass if you refused.


The area to the left as you come up the escalators, when the Shard is to your right. I was there this afternoon as it happens and there are bollards around it now and a little covered staircase down to the tube.

Unfortunately a lot of PAPS areas do set photography regulations regardless of how public they are. They’re only vaguely enforced and I’m not aware of any actual legal action but you do get people asked to leave, and just the experience is aggravating. I got questioned by a security guard at Gasholder Park not too long ago who asked me if I was doing commercial photography while I was literally setting up a fucking pinhole camera - yeah, big market for weird blurry pictures of nothing much, you got me mate. He was perfectly polite but it pissed me off enough to ruin that afternoon.

It would seem bizarre that the space outside the entrance to a major national rail station was privately owned but I really would not put it past them; I was also relatively close (I was shooting upwards to take some abstract architectural shots of the corner of the News UK building, which I have done before without problems but it may not have had tenants as evil).

Yeh. We'll see but it's my mo not to take bluster for banning and to see evidence they're not full of shit and trying it on. I'll report back later

 

[Artaxerxes]

I wouldn't think that the pavement could ever be private property.

Sadly it is in places.

There's a place near London Bridge (the road with the Sainsbury's going to Cannon Street) with a discreet plaque on the middle of the pavement announcing whose land your walking on.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Sadly it is in places.

There's a place near London Bridge (the road with the Sainsbury's going to Cannon Street) with a discreet plaque on the middle of the pavement announcing whose land your walking on.

Shopping precincts can be also. I think it’s scandalous that places where the public have to walk whilst going about their business can be privately owned. It flies under the radar though as it isn’t something that needs consideration until it comes to photography or protest.

 

[MrSpikey]

The photography isn’t illegal, but on private property they can ask you to leave and it would iirc be aggravated trespass if you refused.

It would only be aggravated trespass if, while trespassing, you were disrupting a legal activity, or intimidating those engaged in one. Passively taking photos should be hard to fit into these definitions (not that I've never seen the police try), especially on private property where the public is generally admitted.

If it is private property, though, the landowner or their agents can ask you to leave for any reason. If you refuse, they have the right to use "reasonable force" to remove you.

 

[19force8]

Sadly it is in places.

There's a place near London Bridge (the road with the Sainsbury's going to Cannon Street) with a discreet plaque on the middle of the pavement announcing whose land your walking on.

It's not uncommon. In many shopping streets in London you'll see rows of brass dots in the pavement. These mark the boundaries of the property on which the shop stands. In fact many older houses actually have storage rooms under the pavement itself - coal cellars etc. - look for the small circular manhole covers which allowed coal to be delivered without contaminating the house.

 

[19force8]

Shopping precincts can be also. I think it’s scandalous that places where the public have to walk whilst going about their business can be privately owned. It flies under the radar though as it isn’t something that needs consideration until it comes to photography or protest.

Luton is a particularly bad example of this where virtually the entire shopping precinct (the Mall, used to be the Arndale centre) is a privatised public space.

 

[Pickman's model]

No one approached me while I was taking pictures

 

[A380]

Luton is a particularly bad example of this where virtually the entire shopping precinct (the Mall, used to be the Arndale centre) is a privatised public space.

It’s about the moneterasation of public space.

Mind you, for the whole of Luton town centre that would come out at about £17.20.

 

[DaveCinzano]

Of interest: