News RSS Feed


Student slams Middlesex University for court injunction

A STUDENT involved in the 11-day sit-in protest against the closure of the Middlesex University philosophy school has slammed managers for their “intimidating and threatening” attitude.

Ali Alizadeh, 33, claims the university acted “unethically” by naming specific people when it sought an injunction to oust them from the building and deliberately created “an atmosphere of fear”.

Philosophy staff and students and campaigners from outside the institution first occupied Mansion House in the Trent Park campus on May 4 after the university announced it planned to phase out the department over two years.

They refused to move for 11 days before finally leaving on Saturday following a High Court injunction.

Mr Alizadeh said: “The injunction named specific people who weren’t even actively involved in the occupation. “They were just picking on random people to intimidate and threaten the whole student body. “They had the option to continue negotiations, but they went for the threatening and intimidating approach, trying to create an atmosphere of fear. “We think this was a very big mistake and it will remain in our memory for a long time.”

Middlesex University is one of dozens to slash courses after the Government announced budget cuts of almost £500 million next year. The university blamed the decision on insufficient demand for places.

In a letter to Middlesex staff on May 14, university vice chancellor Professor Michael Driscoll explained why he sought the injunction. He said: “The continuing occupation of the Mansion building raises serious concerns surrounding health and safety, disruption to the working of the university and costs of security.

“The university does not underestimate the strength of feeling among Philosophy staff and students and their supporters and while it recognises their right to free speech, it could not condone this illegal occupation.”

Paul Manning, security manager at the university, said students had become aggressive towards security staff, causing broken bones and bruising — something the students deny.

He said: “The university had concerns for the welfare of those inside the Mansion building. Fire exits were barricaded and people put themselves at risk by walking onto the roof and leaning out of windows.

“Assaults were committed on security staff by individuals from the protest on entering the Mansion building, resulting in serious injuries including broken bones and severe bruising.”

Mr Manning said police were called last Tuesday and Wednesday and two security staff had to visit GPs and two went to hospital, one by ambulance.

He said police confirmed the protesters had committed common assault but because individuals could not be identified, no charges could be brought.

The students have vowed to continue their protest against the cuts via a Facebook campaign, online petition and rallies.

Comments(4)

nsrnicek says...
2:19am Tue 18 May 10

If Enfield Independent wants to do good journalism, I suggest they ask Middlesex University why they are blatantly lying about the occupation. There were absolutely no assaults, no broken bones, and no bruising. Those are outright lies from Middlesex University administration.

Surely if what Middlesex administration said was true, there would have been police charges! Yet there were absolutely no charges laid at any point, and so Middlesex's lies go unsubstantiated. The police themselves explicitly stated that it was a 'peaceful protest'.

The fact that Middlesex University administration would blatantly lie to the press is something that needs to be raised - they clearly care nothing about the public nor about their students. Considering they are giving themselves pay raises while they cut an internationally-reno
wned department, suggests to me that they are more interested in their own self-interest and not in the quality of education at Middlesex.

Marianne50 says...
2:06pm Tue 18 May 10

I do hope you have evidence for the false and potentially libellous claim the 'spokeman' makes regarding 'bruising' and 'broken bones'. Terrible journalism to publish without checking the facts. I note the 'spokesman' did not care to provide his/her real name.

Marianne50 says...
5:55pm Tue 18 May 10

The wording of this article has changed drastically since this morning without any mention it has been edited making these comments appear out of context.

PS It is spelt "Burroughs".

MCharles says...
7:45pm Tue 18 May 10

I imagine there might be some legal ramifications to the accusation, attributed to Paul Manning but without quotation, that security officers suffered "broken bones" (that is, multiples bones were broken), as I hear a High Court injunction was obtained against the students on supposed grounds of potential violence to persons and property (similarly denied by the students).

Perhaps the journalist and editor involved should just make sure they cover their own backs by adding the evidence they obtained during their investigation into this claim?

I don't know much about law, but I wonder if this is at the very least potential libellous? Perhaps matters could be clarified by getting a direct quote from Paul Mannings, since at least it is then clear who is responsible for the accusation (I wouldn't want the Enfield Independent getting into any trouble!).

click2find

Most popular