Protest at Barclays
Protesters yesterday climbed onto the roof of a Barclays bank branch in Bath as part of a demonstration against the firm's investment in the defence sector.
In one of a string of protests up and down the country, the three demonstrators targetted the branch in Milsom Street.
-
barclays protest
But their claims that the firm has shares of more than £7.3 billion in defence firms have been dismissed as out of date by Barclays.
Protester Steve Jones, who had earlier in the day been at Bath County Court as one of the squatters being evicted from the old Stothert and Pitt building in Lower Bristol Road, said: "This is a national protest and is about global solidarity.
"We are trying to draw attention to the fact that Barclays are profiting from weapons."
A statement from Barclays said: "Barclays Group provides financial services to the defence sector within a specific policy framework.
"We assess each proposal on a case-by-case basis and legal compliance alone does not automatically guarantee our support.
"The aim is to ensure that defence exports financed by Barclays are not used by foreign authorities either to oppress their own populations or to support unjustified external aggression.
"It is our policy not to finance trade in nuclear, chemical, biological or other weapons of mass destruction.
"Our policy also explicitly prohibits financing trade in landmines, cluster bombs or any equipment designed to be used as an instrument of torture."
The firm added: "Their statement that Barclays “invests £7 billion in the arms trade” is not true. The investments referred to here were held by Barclays Global Investors (BGI), a business which Barclays sold in 2009. As a result, these “holdings” are no longer linked with Barclays."
9 Comments
View all
by Paul Wiltshire, Deputy editor
Thursday, March 18 2010, 12:31PM
“Since yet again we can't have a civlised debate, I'll be knocking this on the head.”
by Simon, Bath
Thursday, March 18 2010, 12:16PM
“Jon is the typical of his type, one rule for him another for others....
To quote
"re: the police - they like the law, I don't." - So society set rules and if you don't like them you don't follow them, but anyone who deosn't agree with you or follows your rules ( or the law for that matter ) is wrong - hypocrite
"like 99% of humanity that prohibits me from committing some of the nastier crimes" - i notice only "some" of the nastier crimes this implies that you are quite happy to commit some nastier crimes - Again hypocrite
Oh and your employed by the very state you seek to subvert therefore accpting money for them so you can continue your activities. So in effect the very people you protest against pay you to do it which you accept. Again hypocrite.
I would have some respect for you if you quite your job ( and accepted no benifits ) and then followed your principles. but you don't you just sponge off the state.”
by Jon, Bath
Thursday, March 18 2010, 11:54AM
“funny malcom, that you twist our actions and the defention of facism to suityour own ends, then in your very next comment advocate that the free press develops a political agednda of censoring local events that you don't happen to agree with! But, to lay my cards on the table, as you are an employer, I expect you to hold the reactionary, anti-change views that you do.
P.s - Trotskyite, I don't think so! Anarcho-Syndicalist would be a better term to describe my outlook. And you need to stop fixating on my job - I teach kids, I do a good job of it, and no brainwashing goes on, so get over it - let me go about my socially useful job in peace, and i'll let you go about your 'useful' pr work.
Phil - re: the police - they like the law, I don't. That is the difference. I choose not to follow it (although I do adhere to a moral code, like 99% of humanity that prohibits me from committing some of the nastier crimes), so it is hardly suprising when I break it. A policeman however has the sole job of upholding the law, thus when he chooses to break the law (especially to pursue a political motive) it is worthy of being brought to attention, as it is the sole job of a cop to uphold the law NO MATTER WHAT.”
by Malcolm Cupis, Bridgeyate
Thursday, March 18 2010, 11:00AM
“Precisely Phil. Which is exactly why I think the Chronicle needs to stop giving these people the publicity they crave. The more publicity they get, the more they will behave in this way.”
by Phil Rogers, Bath
Thursday, March 18 2010, 10:44AM
“Is this the same Jon who pretended to be up in arms about the police's alleged "illegal" activity at Newark Works and talked about how squatters rights are "enshrined in law"? It's so easy, isn't it, picking and choosing which bits of the law you want to put on a pedestal and which can be ignored merely to suit your own tastes and views?! It's easy to say "war is wrong" without offering any real proposal on how monumental conflicts in the world can be solved or oppressive regimes brought down. It's easy to wave a banner; easy to turn up in court and have public money spent on dealing with your petty offending. It seems that this litany of "activism" and "protests" is done simply in order to gain kudos in some little reactionary clique whose irrelevance is outweighed only by the amount of publicity it receives.”