The Argus, in its coverage of the Smash EDO demo, bent over backwards to highlight it is not against “legitimate protest” (The Argus, October 15).

By “legitimate protester” it seems to mean anyone who does not mind being woken up by police and intelligence gathering teams, then forcefully marched into a designated protest kettle where they can then passively demonstrate, out of sight and well away from the EDO factory, until they are ordered to leave.

This is not most people’s idea of freedom to protest.

The police’s reaction to the demo was repressive. With forces brought in from around the country and a horse unit coming all the way from Wales, it is no wonder that a lot of money was spent.

However, it was the police’s decision to police the demo in this way. With over 40 pre- emptive arrests, which brought no charges but where some of the arrestees were taken into custody as far away as Crawley – “at the taxpayers’ expense” – it is a decision that Sussex Police will have to justify.

It was their tactics and their erratic kettling of anyone who happened to be passing Lewes Road at the time which caused the expense and any disruption.

It is worth remembering, however, that the tax money wasted on this kind of policing is still dwarfed by the massive amounts spent on starting illegal wars, as well as by the huge subsidies provided for each job in the arms industry.

As long as the Government pays for the security of companies like EDO/ITT, it should be prepared to budget for the backlash.

Our legitimate dissent will not be silenced through the use of force.

Chloe Marsh, Smash EDO


I have to confess that until seeing The Argus today, I had never heard of EDO or the organisation which seeks to discourage their business.

A quick whiz around Google revealed that EDO is part of a New York-based company which produces “defence” technology and had a turnover of $11bn in 2008.

There was no mention of this in the coverage of the demonstration.

As the article correctly pointed out, freedom to protest must be defended. But the article then went on to refer to “troublemakers” and the “expense caused to taxpayers”.

I have no doubt that the demonstrators – all 200 of them – had nothing to do with the attendance of 250 police personnel. The over-the-top policing of the march should surely be paid for by the American company which chose to base its largely unwelcome operation within Sussex.

As a 68-year-old who rarely sees a policeman on the streets of Worthing, the idea of 250 of them turning up to contribute to an unpleasant confrontation makes me very angry.

The whole tone of the article was anti-demonstrator – rather unfair, I feel, when these young people were taking a principled stand against the disgusting activities of American “defence manufacturers” in our county.

Bill Geddes
Lansdowne Road, Worthing

Sussex police have repeatedly chosen to over-police demonstrations against the arms manufacturer EDO despite there never having been more than 500 protestors at an EDO action.

Usually, as at the recent protest, it’s nearer 150.

Yes, some like to shout and run about, but they have never come close to being any kind of threat to public safety.

It was shocking that, in a time of public spending cuts, Sussex Police thought it appropriate to draft in colleagues from Thames Valley and South Wales – I’m sure the overtime they earned (mainly spent sitting in a van on North Road) was welcome.

Perhaps The Argus would like to balance its reporting next time by looking at why the police feel the need to make such outlandish shows of power and attempts to sway public opinion with such huge and unecessary disruption.

Si Mitchell
Buller Road, Brighton