Hadda be the conscious opposition to truth. Hadda be contrived and calculated untruth. Hadda be the first trial relating to an eviction at Mainshill Wood.

On Wednesday 3rd March 2010 the first trial relating to an eviction at Mainshill was heard at Lanark Sheriff’s court. The eviction was carried out on Monday 26th October by Strathclyde Police who were called to the site by logging workers who found their access blocked by a giant wooden structure. This blockade achieved its objective of stopping work for much of the day but unfortunately led to a further, unexpected arrest; that of the defendant who entered their home upon hearing police tell workers to destroy it. The defendant was then ordered to leave the house and told that they would be arrested whether they came out immediately or not.

The court heard evidence from 4 police witnesses and one of the workers (who was driving the giant “forwarder” machine on the morning in question). It was alleged by officers that the dwelling occupied by the defendant was a makeshift barricade built over the preceding weekend and positioned with the intent of blocking the access road to the site. Such fabrications were heard time and again throughout the trial without any challenge or questioning of the officer’s baseless statements (many of these witnesses arrived on site for the first time that morning). At one point a now retired inspector stated that the concrete used in securing the structure must have been fresh because, “it was still discolored and wet in appearance”. Not until the defendant took the stand was the inspector’s “expertise” in concrete (especially of the sort donated to protest sites) brought before the attention of the court.

However irritating such falsehoods are, they are to be expected from the police. What was not expected, were the lies told by the “forwarding” operator when recounting the events of that morning. Just to clarify: a forwarder is a large machine approximately 8×3 meters in size used to collect piles of logs left by harvester machines and transport them about the site. The court heard how the forwarder had bypassed the defendants dwelling at least twice a day for the previous 3 weeks (and in actual fact, as it had also done on the morning of the 26th). This particular morning the vehicle was seen to bypass the dwelling as normal and proceed up the road towards the purpose built barricade. Upon realising the path was blocked the worker moved his machine back to the locus of the dwelling and called the security guard on site who then called the police. During the intervening hour it took for the police to arrive, the worker and a number of his colleagues chatted with the occupants of the site. Then, upon the request of an officer the machine was reversed around the dwelling and parked on the other side of the road. This series of events somehow became skewed in the months before the trial, morphing into the distinctly unfamiliar: worker came to the dwelling, stopped and called the security guard. These lies can be countered by a number of eye witnesses and photographs taken on the morning. Of course, in the acquisition of eyewitness statements no camp occupants were listened to and instead the whole record of events was outlined by the estates manager Ian Fleming, a number of the workers and the police.

At no point during the evidence was the conduct of the defendant described as anything other than peaceful and amicable. However, the court did hear evidence that upon entering the dwelling, officers of Strathclyde’s specialist “V Division” proceded to knee the defendant in the chest and apply pressure point techniques to force them to release from the lock-on to which they were attached. At no point can such actions have been considered necessary and such tactics expose the officers as the mindless bullies they are.

The verdict of guilty was reached by the residing Sheriff for breach of the peace and a full report of the case will be prepared for sentencing which will be in April. We await such a report to see how this verdict can possibly have been reached. The camp resident maintains their innocence in this matter.