Trio Charged with £32,000 Criminal Damage to Raytheon Rooftop

Protesters defiant: “I am the accuser not the accused”

Three people have been charged with £32,000 worth of criminal damage to the Raytheon Rooftop between december 2008 and january this year, around the time Israel bombarded Gaza with weapons made by Raytheon . One of the charged Elijah Smith was heard saying “I am the accuser not the accused”.

Raytheon should be in the dock they are the worlds biggest producer of missiles and poisoned countless civilians and soldiers with Dupleted Uranium.

Raytheon is enabling Israeli forces to engage in practices that violate international law, UN Resolutions and the human rights of the Palestinian people through being a major manufacturer of munitions used by the Israeli army. Raytheon has also supplied electronic equipment for the Israeli Wall. Fragments of Raytheon weapons have been found in Lebanon and more recently a school in the Gaza strip.

Raytheon’s Paveway guided bomb system, was “the most widely used precision munition in Operation Iraqi Freedom. More than 8,700 were dropped.” We are all now well aware of the illegal basis of the Iraqi war, its failure to find any WMD’s and its ongoing toll on the civilian population.

Raytheon also invented the ‘silent guardian’ a crowd control sytem that uses microwaves to make crowds of people unable to act by heating them up and causing nausia. And watch out calais campers they have a 1.3 billion contract for CCTV system’s on the British border’s.

On 11 June 2008, by a unanimous verdict of the jury, the Raytheon 9 were found not guilty of three counts of criminal damage at the Raytheon offices,valued at £300,000 , in Derry Northern Ireland on 9 August 2006. With this president being set under British law, some of the Bristol defendants are optimistic of similar verdict but they will need your help thanks for reading, watch this space.

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Trio Charged with £32,000 Criminal Damage to Raytheon Rooftop”

  1. FUCKING SMASH EM WE DID EDO WE BEAT RAYTHEON NOW WE CAN BEA THE COURTS 1 0N TO US AND YES I AM FREE TINTIN WHERES MY ITALIAN ROSE

  2. Ethics and partnerships: the OU and the St Athan
    Military Academy
    The Open University now boasts a Centre for Ethics and includes ethical teaching in its curriculum, but it does
    not yet have an ethical policy guiding its corporate partnerships. The recent link between the OU and the Metrix
    consortium has led to protests in Wales and may result in far wider ramifications for the institution
    Life at the OU in Wales took a new turn recently, with demonstrations
    against the University’s involvement in a military training consortium
    taking place outside our building.
    Over the past year, the ‘Stop the St Athan Military Academy
    Campaign’ has been publicizing and attacking the OU’s involvement
    in the Metrix consortium, which followed its success in being
    awarded a government contract to run a training agency for all of
    the British armed forces at St Athan in South Glamorgan.
    The OU is a member of the consortium, along with some major
    arms manufacturers, including QinetiQ and Raytheon. Raytheon
    manufactures Tomohawk and Patriot missiles, and missiles
    capable of carrying cluster bombs; QinetiQ hit the headlines with
    criticisms by the National Audit Office of the process whereby, in
    the privatization of DERA, the responsible civil servants became
    multi-millionaires overnight.
    Thousands of training jobs from around the UK will be moved
    to St Athan, just outside Cardiff, where up to 5,500 jobs will be
    created. This figure is one that fluctuates and is contested, but it is
    claimed that the St Athan Military Academy, costing £15 billion,
    will be the largest ever public-sector project in Wales.
    The project is welcomed by local MPs and Welsh Assembly
    Members, by the Welsh Assembly Government and by all of the
    major political parties in Wales. Nonetheless, several Plaid Cymru
    members of the National Assembly for Wales have spoken against
    it, and there are a small but vociferous number of people in Wales
    opposed to the militarization of the economy. Anti-militarism has
    been a core element of the nationalist struggle since its inception,
    and is a perspective shared by many key figures in public life.
    Does this new partnership fit with the mission of the OU – to
    create and enhance life opportunities? There are concerns about any
    institution’s associations with the arms trade. Jennie Lee, one of the
    main founders of the OU, was firm in her stand against arms, in that
    she was against the UK acquiring a nuclear deterrent.
    Various UK universities (including St Andrews and several
    Cambridge colleges) have adopted ethical investment policies.
    University College London, under pressure from students and
    alumni, is among those that are considering doing so. The School of
    Oriental and African Studies and Goldsmiths, University of London
    and Bangor University have withdrawn investment from arms
    companies. The OU has still to decide on whether it needs to devise
    clear and fully transparent ethical guidelines to steer its business
    partnerships.
    Other institutions have been more forthright. The Norwegian state
    pension fund, which includes its petroleum fund, and Liverpool City
    Council are among the bodies that have disinvested from Raytheon,
    on the basis of its implication in war crimes and killing civilians in
    Iraq and Lebanon.
    Of course, military technology and the armed forces are involved
    in defence as well as attack, and there are plenty of us who subscribe
    to notions of ‘just wars’. But the plan is to train not just British
    troops, but armed forces from around the world. The idea of training
    troops for the Burmese government is more controversial than
    training British troops.
    Others do not share this political or moral concern, but object on
    pragmatic grounds: that the OU risks tainting its brand. In a sense,
    the greatest asset of the OU is its brand. The brand isn’t just a logo
    but is a reputation, and the reputations of organizations increasingly
    are linked to their ethical and environmental policies and practices.
    We only have to look to Nike, McDonald’s, Tesco, the Body Shop
    and the Co-operative Bank to see the centrality of ‘the brand’ to
    business performance.
    Across the economy and around the world there is a huge growth
    in the ‘corporate social responsibility’ agenda. In one sense, this is
    recognized by the OU, which recently launched a Level 1 course
    on Ethics in Real Life and takes very seriously its commitment to
    development in Africa. At the same time, it is in partnership with
    the World Bank to develop a private university in Pakistan, in
    collaboration with Tesco regarding using clubcard points to pay
    course fees (see Society Matters No.10), and is now linked with the
    Metrix consortium.
    This suggests the need for an ethical, environmental and corporate
    responsibility framework for the OU’s relationships with other
    organizations. With its deservedly high standing, the OU brand is of
    enormous benefit to us all. The good reputation of the OU is an asset
    and needs to be defended actively.
    In response to the University’s involvement in the Metrix
    consortium, the Open University Branch of the University and
    College Union (OUBUCU) has formulated a set of ethical guidelines
    to be applied to the future selection of its strategic partnerships with
    external organizations. The guidelines set out criteria regarding the
    arms trade, ecological sustainability, animal welfare and corporate
    responsibility to ‘filter’ out partnerships which may commercially
    damage the University’s brand. At the time of going to press, a
    paper setting out the arguments for their implementation has been
    presented to the Vice-Chancellor and the Branch awaits a response
    to its suggestion that a forum be established between union and
    management to discuss the guidelines. The union believes the
    University cannot be financially successful in the future unless it
    is committed to an ethical approach to partnerships.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: