Skip navigation

Indymedia UK is a network of individuals, independent and alternative media activists and organisations, offering grassroots, non-corporate, non-commercial coverage of important social and political issues

Students removed by force from Bullring Topshop

Brum Student Activist | 11.03.2009 15:59 | Birmingham

Last weekend students from the University of Birmingham were forcibly removed from the Bullring during a non-violent peaceful protest against Topshops refusal to join the ethical trade initiative.

Protestors freeze in the shop doorway
Protestors freeze in the shop doorway


More and more security gather around and begin to remove the protestors
More and more security gather around and begin to remove the protestors


Protestors are then removed 'using reasonable force' from the Bullring
Protestors are then removed 'using reasonable force' from the Bullring



On Sunday the 8th March, student activists froze along the entrance of Topshop’s doorway in the Bull Ring in Birmingham to protest about Topshop’s and the rest of the Arcadia Group’s lack of commitment to join the Ethical Trade Initiative. A crowd of surprised shoppers gathered to stare at the protesters, who were posing as statues along the doorway, wearing signs which said, ‘join the Ethical Trading Initiative, and ‘Stop Topshop’s Sweatshops.’ Although the protesters were peaceful and not obstructive allowing for people to easily pass through the doorway, they were dragged out by security guards extremely violently after only a couple of minutes. The efforts by security to remove the protesters served to draw an even larger crowd of curious onlookers to the scene.

The protest was held by students from the People and Planet society, which is a national student organisation, running a Redress Fashion Campaign to put pressure on Topshop to join the Ethical Trading Initiative. This is only a very first basic step in committing to improving labour standards for people who are working in garment factories all over the Global South. Arcadia is the largest high street retailer not to have joined the ETI. Although Topshop would maintain that they are making progress in the area of labour rights, thy have as yet not mapped out any long-term commitment to improving labour rights, and many of their initiatives have been ‘research projects.’ Although they have collaborated with Next, they have not entered into any multi-stakeholder agreements such as the Ethical Trading Initiative, which is one of the most important recommendations for improving labour rights.

The aim of the protest was to make more people aware of Topshop’s lack of commitment to reform its labour practices and to encourage Topshop customers to challenge the company about the consequences of its actions for people’s quality of life and health. One protester said, ‘It is completely unacceptable and disgusting that our cheap clothes are really being paid for through the exploitation of thousands of people on the other side of the world. We are trying to encourage consumers to engage with the shops where they are buying clothes, and to make sure they know what is really going on.’

For more information the campaign and Topshop’s trading standards visit:

 http://www.cleanupfashion.co.uk/images/pdf/letscleanupfashion2008.pdf

 http://peopleandplanet.org/redressfashion/topshop

Brum Student Activist


Comments

Hide the following 10 comments

Protecting the identities of Bullring security?

11.03.2009 16:45

Why have you decided to grey out the faces of the security who violently ejected you from the Bullring?

concerned brummie


sue their asses off

11.03.2009 21:06

They've greyed out all the people who aren't protesters I think.

BTW - surely private security aren't allowed to remove by force? Lawsuit time methinks.

aaa


reasonable force

11.03.2009 23:08

You have a right to protest in a public place, however when on private property to which the public have implied permission to access at certain times e.g shops during opening hours, the proprietors, staff, management, security etc can ask you to leave. Once directed to leave you become a tresspasser, and reasonable force can be used to remove you and keep you out if you refuse or make no attempt to go when directed. Protest outside then they cant touch you.

bungle


u sure?

12.03.2009 01:29

You sure private security are allowed to use force to remove "trespassers"?

Unless there's been a law change they aren't, they're meant to call the police. Private security have no special position under law so they only have the same "powers" as an ordinary citizen. Hence they'd only be allowed to use "reasonable force" if they're making a citizen's arrest (which they weren't).
 http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080527102630AA0xRkr

At the very least, worth asking a lawyer.

(Ethically of course it's neither here nor there - shops are spaces for the use of the public and therefore people have a right to protest there - their "private" ownership is a legal myth to legitimise despotic power-relations, i.e., running a public space "as if" it were a private space for one's own use only. A true "private" space is exclusively for those who "own" it, otherwise it's public use).

aaa


I would take a second lot to make a citizen arrest if I were you

12.03.2009 07:10

"Unless there's been a law change they aren't, they're meant to call the police. Private security have no special position under law so they only have the same "powers" as an ordinary citizen. Hence they'd only be allowed to use "reasonable force" if they're making a citizen's arrest (which they weren't)."

yes they may ask you to leave if you are committing an act that they don't allow. however, if you don't then it become a criminal matter and a not a civil one. So there only recourse is to make a citizens arrest. However the use of reasonable force is only equal to the action being taken. As there was no physical damage to property, or premises then reasonable force in this case is not justified or legal and reasonable force is very difficult to qualify.

So on that count charges should be brought against all the security guards involved and damages sought. The bullring also cannot either issue you a ban to a place which is accessible to the public without a court order either, so don't let that rubbish put you off protesting again. An anti social behaviour order also cannot be brought against you for political protest either, which is in effect what this is.

The only recourse for the security is to talk to you let you peacefully protest and try to ask you to leave. force has no legal basis in this case and is very simple criminal assault the only people who can remove you are police officers and not wardens or pcso's.

I would take some law students down to observe and the rugby team, should force be used again as they would have the right to then make citizens arrests on the security guards.

now that would be interesting.

brummie


please don't post nonsense about the law

12.03.2009 11:02

The occupier of the premises is entitled, having told the person to depart, to use force to eject him or her but must use no more force than is reasonably necessary to effect the ejection, and it is also the law that the occupier may himself eject the trespasser, or he may ask others to do it for him, and therefore on his behalf.

This is the common law remedy of abatement by self-help.

See: Porter v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [1999] WL 852129
R v Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall Ex p. CEGB [1981] 3 WLR 967

"if you don't then it become a criminal matter and a not a civil one"

It definitely does not.

streetlawyer


Reasonable force

12.03.2009 12:51

Given that the girl being dragged out is smiling for the photo, you might find it difficult to claim they were using unreasonable force.

MonkeyBot


probably illegal; consult a lawyer

15.03.2009 22:15

The question isn't whether the force used was "reasonable" or "unreasonable" but whether they could be sued for using force at all, since they are security guards not police. Notice that the 2 court cases referenced are both cases against the police.

I've come across similar cases, involving for instance student occupations and squatters, where people have sought legal advice because property owners have resorted to direct "enforcement" of evictions. My impression is that they aren't allowed to do it, they have to call police to enact forcible removals (in some cases they also need a court order), so if they use force (even if "reasonable"/proportionate) they can be sued. You'd have to check with a lawyer to be sure though.

sucks


more citations / case law - probably illegal

17.03.2009 00:04

The two examples of case law suggest that a property owner can deputise POLICE to remove trespassing protesters as a way to exercise their supposed right to their property - it doesn't say anything about security guards using force. I can see how this would be read as saying that people are allowed to evict trespassers themselves, which is implied in the idea that they can make police act on their behalf instead - but people with legal rights aren't normally allowed by the state to use force to enforce their own claims.

e.g. someone who sees another person driving their stolen car who decides to smash the window, drag the driver out and drive off - or orders their heavies/security guards to do it - presumably illegal? They have the "right" to take their car back but the legally recognised means would be to call the police (if the police smashed the window in and dragged the driver out it would be legal if found to be "proportionate").

For instance, this:
 http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/squatters.htm
says
"Do not try to use force to remove the squatters yourself - you could find yourself accused of a criminal act under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977"

If the common law right to evict trespassers does not immunise from prosecution for illegal eviction then surely it does not immunise from prosecution for assault either? (Don't get me wrong, there might be court cases or specific laws saying that it does, but I haven't seen it if there is).

This
 http://athensdoorguy.blogspot.com/2008/10/can-i-throw-you-out.html
says security can only PHYSICALLY throw someone out who refuses to leave if they are deemed to be threatening violence - otherwise they have to call the police (they get away with it because there's too little evidence). But it's from America.

This
 http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081116220454AACkdqV
again says it's legal to have police throw out trespassers but not to do it oneself (even in one's own house). Also probably from America.

vigilantism not legal


positivepressure.info ...For You...Thought we could Gather

19.12.2010 21:47

Hi there have been watching this unfold and its takeing on a life of its own and students need a voice.....put this together for a place to meet and get as angry andd ready as we need to............................................................................................................................................................................................................................





www.wikkileaks.org.uk
www.wikkileaks.co.uk

positivepressure.info


Thye common divide will be to streched with what they want us to pay ... why are thew rich getting away with this....STOP PHILLIP TRADING FOT 1 MONTRH AND TOP SHOP WILL BE NO MORE....!!!

please follow link , join forum , Start fighting....NO SPAM















Exit Net
mail e-mail: domains@exitnet.net
- Homepage: http://positivepressure.info


Links