We are grateful that Shergroup have removed a misrepresentative article about Save Leyton Marsh group and our campaign in response to Daniel Ashman’s letter.
This is the subsequent letter written by Daniel Ashman in response to their correspondence and the claims contained therein:
Thank you for your correspondence and I appreciate the demonstration of faith you have shown through removal of the article.
– I would be extremely grateful if we could see the evidence of intimidation and abuse on that day; such conduct would have gone against my wishes and that of others. Of special interest is the threats of violence that are claimed. Where and when did these threats occur? If you were to send me the reports I would then be able to address those specific individuals as I agree it is counter productive to the aims of the Save Leyton Marsh Campaign and the nature of the Community Support Camp, although peaceful resistance is not.- Like you I do not wish this conversation to be based on opinion but wish it to be based on fact. Could you be specific about the instances that police and Shergroup staff were put at risk? How? Where? And when? I think that this clarification of risk is important so we know how these boundaries are defined.- I fully accept obstruction did take place. Having been given twenty four hours to prepare for two court cases was against the principle of a fair trial and a error in law. I understand you had no reason to question the legality of the writ, it was an issue I was hoping would come under scrutiny as a result of my actions. (Though this did not occur). To highlight this injustice and also to highlight the health and safety risks posed to the workers and the public from the exposed hazardous soil was the reason why there were acts of civil disobedience.- I don’t think that a woman taking part in civil disobedience is of notable concern, as they are old enough to take responsibility for themselves, but the suggestion that a child taking part was endorsed by the whole protest and marked as a tactic deployed by the whole group is objectionable and something that we would have strongly advised against had it not been a spontaneous act by the family themselves.- Are you claiming inconvenience is the same as putting an officer at risk? If so could you elaborate so it could be understood. At risk from what?
On a lighter note as an expression of good will I ask for your consent to make your former reply public. There are members of the public who would be interested in your response. Thank you.
All the best,
(A concerned human being that is watching the finance industry in cohorts with the government rob our common heritage.)