Locals complain Britain's first flatpack IKEA homes - called 'BoKlok' - are ugly, invade their privacy and are plagued by rats.
The Bristol development, known as BoKlok on the Brook, is the first of its kind to be built outside of Scandinavia.
They are touted as cheaper than traditional houses and faster to build - offering a potential solution to the UK's housing crisis.
But residents in homes they say are overlooked by the 'blocks' in Bristol complain their lives have suffered as a result of the 'eyesore' project.
Building work began in 2020 and was hit by delays, although some residents have now moved in.
What are BoKlok homes and how much do they cost?
Ikea flat-pack homes are seen by some as a solution to help Brits struggling to get a foot on the property ladder.
The homes, which are made of wood, are assembled in a factory before being shipped to the building site, usually in two parts.
BoKlok - which Ikea owns - says it completes up to 90% of each house in the factory with the remaining 10% finished on site.
It says the fact the homes are made of wood means they have a lower carbon footprint.
They come in a variety of sizes, including two, three or four-bedroom detached, semi-detached or terraced houses and one or two-bedroom apartments.
Around 14,000 have been constructed so far, mainly in Sweden, Finland and Norway. Prices for finished homes start from around £350,000.
Retiree Frederick Truckle, 71, lives on nearby Alard Road. He said: 'I keep my hedges up because they can see in my garden - it's disgusting.
'Without that I'd be looking in their windows all the time, and they'd be looking into mine. It's terrible. It's an eyesore.'
Supermarket worker Jackie Bowey, 61, also lives on Alard Road and said: 'I saw the plans at the BoKlok office in 2021 and they were totally different.
'When they said they were building them, the plans showed that the houses wouldn't be facing us - that it would be brick.
'So when they started building I contacted them and said it's not on because you said they wouldn't be facing us.
'I said I think it's disgusting that [the development is] overlooking my garden.'
Ms Bowey says a BloKlok team member came to visit her house after she complained.
She claims: 'He came over and said ''what's the problem?''. I said ''can't you see it right in front of your face?''
'I asked if they could build a higher fence and he said no because that would mean more planning permission.
'This is my family home and they just don't care what you say. The value of my home could be affected because of this.'
The IKEA houses - built in partnership with construction firm Skanska - sit on the busy A4174.
The road runs to the south on the outskirts of Knowle West - one of the city's more deprived areas.
Residents around the housebuilding project have also complained of noise pollution, dust and an increase in the local rat population.
Construction work is still being carried out at the site, although all the houses now seem to be in place.
The houses are not built from scratch on site but are usually delivered in two parts.
Mark, 57, is a neighbour to the development. He would not give his job or surname.
He said that his main concern is vermin.
Mark said: 'We've got traps down the alleyway. We had a bit of a problem with rats before but it got really bad when they started work.'
Building work began on the project in 2020 but was hit by delays.
Developers even had to put people who had paid sizeable deposits in Airbnbs while they waited for the work to be finished, according to local reports.
Complaints were then made about vandals getting into the empty site by breaking through fencing.
One man posted on Facebook about the lack of security.
He wrote: 'BoKlok UK again no security around the site at boklok on the brook this is happening all the time now, the site is a magnet for [kids] getting in, to make matters worse this has been closed for nearly two weeks and NOTHING has been done.'
BoKlok UK replied online, and said: 'We are aware of the issue and the recurring vandalism.
'Our site teams are regularly checking and repairing the fencing.
'We have installed additional security on site but unfortunately, this has not totally mitigated the problem.
'We have been in touch with Avon & Somerset Police, who will be sending out an officer'.
Charlotte Parry, 28, and Joel Collins, 31, moved into their £272,000, two-bedroom BoKlok house in January this year after a 13-month delay.
The couple were given a range of reasons each time their move was pushed back.
Ms Parry, a technician at Bath University, said: 'It was Covid, it was the war in Ukraine, it was a timber shortage.'
'We were renting so every time we would have to go back and say actually can you not put it on the market.
'We ended up staying in an Airbnb for three months because we had nowhere else to go.
'They paid for some of it - the actual cost of the Airbnb- but they didn't take into account the extra petrol for work, the storage locker.'
Mr Collins, a software developer, added: 'They'd say the move-in is right around the corner, then it would be a wait for three months and then another three months.
'What's insane about that is they barely had it ready for January so surely they knew well before it wouldn't be ready for October.'
The pair had been excited to live in an eco-friendly home but ended up frustrated with the lack of communication and an unclear complaints process.
There is a portal where residents can log issues but the couple said it can take weeks to get a reply.
Residents also requested a town hall with the BoKlok on the Brook team but they were refused.
They have noticed a number of snagging issues, including loose screws, a wonky bath and a wrongly installed heat pump.
Ms Parry said: 'It's really disheartening to go around the house and find little things that just aren't right.
'This is supposed to be done to a standard but they've just done the bare minimum.'
Mr Collins added: 'If it was on time then fair enough but it's been so long. And when they do send someone round to fix it, it's a toss up whether they'll make it better or worse.
'We've started doing stuff ourselves because the people they send round do more harm than good.'
Residents in a section of the BoKlok apartments have been asked to leave while work is done to repair wrongly installed showers which left water dripping.
One of the apartment owners had a scare when an electric outlet in a kitchen shorted and burnt the surrounding insulation.
Tochi Okoye, 27, is pregnant and lives in a three-bed house on the development with her partner, and has had an issue with the noise from the building work.
Ms Okoye, a litigator, said: 'I work and sometimes I have the window open when I'm on the phone with customers. I'm paranoid that they can hear all the noise.'
'You can hear the drilling and the big trucks coming down.
'We moved in February this year but we were meant to move in April last year. They said it was to do with Covid and materials.
'We had to keep extending our mortgage. We had to move from our flat into another place for six months because we had timed it so that we could move from our place into here but that was impossible.
'We asked if they could pay some of the rent but they didn't. There was no compensation.'
A BoKlok spokesperson said: 'All homes at BoKlok on the Brook have been delivered as per our planning consent.
'We appreciate that a housing scheme still under development from time to time may cause inconvenience for existing residents and neighbours, however we are working with third-party contractors to complete all works required for the benefit of all residents as well as those who are moving in during the final build phase.
'Our aftercare team is committed to supporting our customers and have rectified snagging defects within the reporting times allocation.
'If there are any customers who have a specific concern, which they do not feel has been sufficiently addressed, we would always urge them to contact our customer care team direct - whose details have been provided.'
Jess Phillips, the shadow minister for domestic violence and safeguarding, was among 10 frontbenchers who defied the leader’s order not to vote for the SNP amendment to the King’s Speech on Wednesday evening.
Explaining his position, which is in line with that of the government, Mr Starmer said a ceasefire would allow Hamas to regroup and launch further terror attacks on Israel.
MPs voted 293 to 125, majority 168, to reject the SNP’s King’s Speech amendment calling for “all parties to agree to an immediate ceasefire” in Gaza. Below is a breakdown of how they voted.
Keir Starmer has faced a mass rebellion from Labour Party MPs in his stance on Gaza
(via REUTERS)
Ayes - in favour of a ceasefire
Diane Abbott (Independent - Hackney North and Stoke Newington)
Tahir Ali (Labour - Birmingham, Hall Green)
Rosena Allin-Khan (Labour - Tooting)
Hannah Bardell (Scottish National Party - Livingston)
Paula Barker (Labour - Liverpool, Wavertree)
Apsana Begum (Labour - Poplar and Limehouse)
Clive Betts (Labour - Sheffield South East)
Mhairi Black (Scottish National Party - Paisley and Renfrewshire South)
Paul Blomfield (Labour - Sheffield Central)
Steven Bonnar (Scottish National Party - Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill)
Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party - Edinburgh North and Leith)
Alan Brown (Scottish National Party - Kilmarnock and Loudoun)
Karen Buck (Labour - Westminster North)
Richard Burgon (Labour - Leeds East)
Dawn Butler (Labour - Brent Central)
Ian Byrne (Labour - Liverpool, West Derby)
Liam Byrne (Labour - Birmingham, Hodge Hill)
Amy Callaghan (Scottish National Party - East Dunbartonshire) (Proxy vote cast by Marion Fellows)
Dan Carden (Labour - Liverpool, Walton)
Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat - Orkney and Shetland)
Wendy Chamberlain (Liberal Democrat - North East Fife)
Sarah Champion (Labour - Rotherham)
Douglas Chapman (Scottish National Party - Dunfermline and West Fife)
Joanna Cherry (Scottish National Party - Edinburgh South West)
Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrat - St Albans)
Jeremy Corbyn (Independent - Islington North)
Ronnie Cowan (Scottish National Party - Inverclyde)
Angela Crawley (Scottish National Party - Lanark and Hamilton East)
Stella Creasy (Labour - Walthamstow)
Jon Cruddas (Labour - Dagenham and Rainham)
Judith Cummins (Labour - Bradford South)
Ed Davey (Liberal Democrat - Kingston and Surbiton)
Martyn Day (Scottish National Party - Linlithgow and East Falkirk)
Marsha De Cordova (Labour - Battersea)
Martin Docherty-Hughes (Scottish National Party - West Dunbartonshire)
Allan Dorans (Scottish National Party - Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Proxy vote cast by Marion Fellows)
Peter Dowd (Labour - Bootle)
Sarah Dyke (Liberal Democrat - Somerton and Frome)
Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic & Labour Party - Foyle)
Jonathan Edwards (Independent - Carmarthen East and Dinefwr)
Julie Elliott (Labour - Sunderland Central)
Tim Farron (Liberal Democrat - Westmorland and Lonsdale)
Stephen Farry (Alliance - North Down)
Marion Fellows (Scottish National Party - Motherwell and Wishaw)
Stephen Flynn (Scottish National Party - Aberdeen South)
Richard Foord (Liberal Democrat - Tiverton and Honiton)
Mary Kelly Foy (Labour - City of Durham)
Barry Gardiner (Labour - Brent North)
Patricia Gibson (Scottish National Party - North Ayrshire and Arran)
Patrick Grady (Scottish National Party - Glasgow North)
Peter Grant (Scottish National Party - Glenrothes)
Sarah Green (Liberal Democrat - Chesham and Amersham)
Margaret Greenwood (Labour - Wirral West)
Fabian Hamilton (Labour - Leeds North East)
Claire Hanna (Social Democratic & Labour Party - Belfast South)
Neale Hanvey (Alba Party - Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath)
Drew Hendry (Scottish National Party - Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)
Wera Hobhouse (Liberal Democrat - Bath)
Kate Hollern (Labour - Blackburn)
Rachel Hopkins (Labour - Luton South)
Stewart Hosie (Scottish National Party - Dundee East)
During your trial you will have complete digital access to FT.com with everything in both of our Standard Digital and Premium Digital packages.
Standard Digital includes access to a wealth of global news, analysis and expert opinion. Premium Digital includes access to our premier business column, Lex, as well as 15 curated newsletters covering key business themes with original, in-depth reporting. For a full comparison of Standard and Premium Digital, click here.
Change the plan you will roll onto at any time during your trial by visiting the “Settings & Account” section.
What happens at the end of my trial?
If you do nothing, you will be auto-enrolled in our premium digital monthly subscription plan and retain complete access for $69 per month.
For cost savings, you can change your plan at any time online in the “Settings & Account” section. If you’d like to retain your premium access and save 20%, you can opt to pay annually at the end of the trial.
You may also opt to downgrade to Standard Digital, a robust journalistic offering that fulfils many user’s needs. Compare Standard and Premium Digital here.
Any changes made can be done at any time and will become effective at the end of the trial period, allowing you to retain full access for 4 weeks, even if you downgrade or cancel.
When can I cancel?
You may change or cancel your subscription or trial at any time online. Simply log into Settings & Account and select "Cancel" on the right-hand side.
You can still enjoy your subscription until the end of your current billing period.
What forms of payment can I use?
We support credit card, debit card and PayPal payments.
Pro-Palestinian protesters clambering over a First World War statue were “deeply distasteful”, James Cleverly said as he offered police new powers to protect war memorials.
The protesters climbed on the Royal Artillery Memorial at Hyde Park Corner on Wednesday evening after a demonstration outside the Houses of Parliament.
A video of the protesters climbing over the statues while carrying Palestinian flags was shared online by Johnny Mercer, the veterans minister, who noted that it was the only memorial to fallen soldiers in central London.
The Home Secretary, a former soldier who served in the Royal Artillery, said the behaviour of the protesters was “clearly wrong” even though police said no laws had been broken so took no action.
Mr Cleverly, who said he would not let his personal feelings as a former serviceman cloud his judgement, told LBC he would “look at this in real depth” to see if “police need more powers to make sure deeply distasteful and provocative things like this don’t happen”.
“It’s clearly wrong. It’s deeply disrespectful for people to climb on war memorials,” he added. “It is about making sure that it doesn’t stimulate violent action or a violent response.
There is only one memorial of fallen soldiers in London.
This is it. I will not stand idly by whilst individuals think this is the correct way to treat these memorials. https://t.co/LQJrZxWvhq
“If we need to take action to give police more powers, we are looking at doing that. I will be speaking later to members of the National Police Chiefs’ Council. We will make sure they have the powers to do the right thing.”
Police said the protesters who climbed on the memorial were a breakaway group who had been dispersed at Hyde Park Corner.
“Most people would agree that to climb on or otherwise disrespect a war memorial is unacceptable,” the statement said. “That is why our officers have made every effort to prevent it happening in recent days.
“While officers were on scene quickly, we regret they were not there quickly enough to prevent the protesters accessing the memorial.”
Police say there is no law explicitly making it illegal to climb on a memorial
Credit: X
The statement added: “We know some online have asked why the protesters were not arrested.
“There is no law explicitly making it illegal to climb on a memorial so officers cannot automatically arrest, but they can intervene and make it clear the behaviour isn’t acceptable. The videos shared online show them doing that.”
On his Twitter/X post with the video, Mr Mercer said: “There is only one memorial of fallen soldiers in London. This is it. I will not stand idly by whilst individuals think this is the correct way to treat these memorials.”
The Twitter/X user who posted the original video said: “Protesters climbing all over the Royal Artillery Memorial – the police make zero arrests. The level of disrespect is incredible. Look at where they climb on to at the end. I feel sad for my country. This needs to stop now. Police do nothing.”
A dispersal order was in place across parts of the City of Westminster from 7.50pm on Wednesday to 2am on Thursday.
Police said one arrest had been made at the protest for possession of an offensive weapon.
Sir Keir Starmer has suffered a major rebellion over his stance on the Israel-Gaza war, with 56 of his MPs voting for an immediate ceasefire.
Jess Phillips, Afzal Khan and Yasmin Qureshi were among shadow ministers who quit their roles to back the motion from the SNP.
Ten of the party's frontbenchers have left their jobs over the vote, including eight shadow minsters.
Sir Keir has instead backed pauses in the conflict to deliver aid.
Announcing she was quitting her role as shadow domestic violence minister, Ms Phillips said she was voting with "my constituents, my head, and my heart".
"I can see no route where the current military action does anything but put at risk the hope of peace and security for anyone in the region now and in the future," she added.
Ms Phillips, Mr Khan and Ms Qureshi, along with Paula Barker, announced they would be leaving shadow ministerial positions in the run-up to the vote.
Sir Keir had signalled before the vote that MPs holding such a role would be sacked if they backed the ceasefire call.
Other frontbenchers Sarah Owen, Rachel Hopkins, Naz Shah and Andy Slaughter have also left their roles after voting for the motion. Dan Carden and Mary Foy left posts as parliamentary aides.
In a statement after the vote, Sir Keir said he regretted the vote of some of his party.
"I regret that some colleagues felt unable to support the position tonight. But I wanted to be clear about where I stood, and where I will stand".
He said Israel had suffered "its worst terrorist attack in a single day" at the hands of Hamas on 7 October.
"No government would allow the capability and intent to repeat such an attack to go unchallenged," he added.
The vote was on an SNP amendment to a government motion on its plans for the year ahead, presented in the King's Speech last week.
It called for an end to the "collective punishment of the Palestinian people" and urged "all parties to agree to an immediate ceasefire".
It was defeated by 125 votes to 294, with the 56 Labour rebels joining other opposition parties to demand a ceasefire, against the Conservatives who opposed it.
There are 29 Labour MPs in the shadow cabinet, but around half of the party's 198 MPs hold some kind of frontbench position, including party whips.
Among the Labour MPs voting in favour of a ceasefire was Stella Creasy, who told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that, while she respected Sir Keir's position, she defied party instruction as a matter of principle.
"Nobody is under any illusions that a single vote in the UK parliament is going to change the situation on the ground," she said, but "advocating for a ceasefire is far better than the alternative of being silent."
SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn said it was "shameful that a majority of Tory and Labour MPs blocked calls for a ceasefire - and have condoned the continued bombardment of Gaza".
The voting took place amid demonstrations from pro-Palestinian supporters, who chanted "ceasefire now" outside Parliament.
The UK has seen a series of protest marches demanding a ceasefire in recent weeks, with an estimated 300,000 people taking part in a rally over the weekend, the biggest in the UK since the war began.
Getty Images
In a bid to defuse the ongoing row over the party's position, the Labour leader had tabled his own amendment spelling out his position, which was defeated - but garnered 160 Labour votes.
It supported Israel's right to self-defence after Hamas's "horrific terrorist attack" on 7 October, in which 1,200 people were killed, and called for the release of more than 200 people taken hostage.
But it also said there had been "far too many deaths of innocent civilians and children" since Israel began striking Gaza in response.
The Hamas-run health ministry says more than 11,000 people have been killed in Gaza since then - of whom more than 4,500 were children.
The amendment also called for longer humanitarian pauses to allow aid, calling this a "necessary step to an enduring cessation of fighting as soon as possible".
Sir Keir has argued that a ceasefire would not be appropriate, because it would freeze the conflict and embolden Hamas.
Labour, like the Conservative government, the United States and the European Union, is calling for "humanitarian pauses" to help aid reach Gaza.
Compared with a formal ceasefire, these pauses tend to last for short periods of time, sometimes just a few hours.
They are implemented with the aim of providing humanitarian support only, as opposed to achieving long-term political solutions.
There had been intense efforts to minimise frontbench resignations by strengthening criticism of Israel's conduct of the campaign in Labour's own motion.
There will be relief in Labour leader's office that no one who sits round the very top shadow cabinet table broke ranks to support the SNP's ceasefire motion- though they are now looking for eight more junior shadow ministers and two parliamentary aides.
While the rebellion stretched beyond Labour's left wing, the party leadership believe the scale of disunity won't be replicated in other policy areas.
The assessment is that the passion and pressures relating to the Middle East are unique.
Insiders say that Sir Keir's call for a pause not a ceasefire keeps him in lock-step with the EU and US.
But some of his closest allies frankly recognise that calls for a ceasefire from an opposition Labour leader will have no effect on Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, never mind Hamas in Gaza.
So in that sense, there's little logic to calling for it.
But it means politically, he will have to face down continued pressure domestically to change position.
By James Gregory & Dominic Casciani, legal correspondent
BBC News
The government is in the "final stages" of negotiating a new treaty with Rwanda, the immigration minister says.
Robert Jenrick said it was "absolutely critical that flights go off to Rwanda in the spring".
He was speaking after the UK Supreme Court ruled the government's flagship asylum policy was unlawful.
The new treaty would protect against the removal of asylum seekers from Rwanda back to their home country, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said.
In their ruling, the Supreme Court justices said there were "substantial grounds" to believe people deported to Rwanda could then be sent, by the Rwandan government, to places where they would be unsafe.
Speaking after the ruling, Mr Sunak said he was determined to "end the merry-go-round" of legal challenges.
Mr Jenrick, meanwhile, said he was "confident" that the government will be able to see flights take off to Rwanda next year.
The treaty and emergency legislation will "determine Rwanda as a safe country and ensure that the endless cycle of legal disputes and challenges finally comes to an end", he told the BBC's Newsnight programme.
But legal heads are being scratched as to how the emergency legislation might work.
Declaring a country safe is not the same as proving to a court that it genuinely is - as the Supreme Court has shown.
The controversial plan to fly asylum seekers to Rwanda and ban them from returning to the UK - which has already cost at least £140m - has been subject to court challenges since it was first announced by Boris Johnson in April 2022.
No asylum seeker has been sent to Rwanda. The first flight was scheduled to go in June 2022 but was cancelled after an intervention from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
The latest ruling from the Supreme Court - the highest court in the UK - determined that the plan in its current form was unlawful.
Addressing reporters at a Downing Street press conference, Mr Sunak said the new treaty and emergency legislation would address concerns and confirm Rwanda was a safe country.
But he said the plan could face further challenges from the ECHR.
"We must be honest about the fact that even once Parliament has changed the law here at home, we could still face challenges from the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg," he said.
"I will not allow a foreign court to block these flights. If the Strasbourg court chooses to intervene against the expressed wishes of Parliament, I am prepared to do what is necessary to get flights off."
The legal case against the policy hinges on the principle of "non-refoulement" - that a person seeking asylum should not be returned to their country of origin if doing so would put them at risk of harm - which is established under both UK and international human rights law.
The treaty Mr Sunak said the government was working on with Rwanda aims to address this, suggesting the Rwanda government will promise never to send a genuine refugee back to where they had fled from.
But there are concerns Rwanda would not follow through on this promise.
Mr Sunak is facing pressure from a significant section of his party over immigration.
He has promised to "do what is necessary" to enact the Rwanda policy, but it is not clear yet how far he would go.
Many expect a new treaty to be challenged in the courts and Tory MPs will be demanding more detail on how he thinks he can circumvent human rights laws and international conventions.
If Mr Sunak takes the step of saying the European Convention on Human Rights no longer applies to sending people to Rwanda, that would deal with one part of his problem.
But the Supreme Court also said three separate British laws stand in the way.
So the government might have to change all these laws - and that's quite a feat to pull off when political time is running out.
It normally takes several months for legislation to pass, but with emergency legislation, the government can make sure it happens more quickly.
All the stages in the House of Commons can be done in as little as a single day. The same is true for the House of Lords - although it is a lot harder for the government to force the pace there if they face opposition.
Mr Sunak said the government wanted to see flights to Rwanda take off by next spring "as planned".
But he carefully avoided promising flights would leave before the next general election, widely expected to be held next year.
The failure of the flagship immigration policy came in a week when the prime minister sacked his home secretary, Suella Braverman, who had championed it.
She had accused him of not having an alternative plan to the Rwanda policy. After the news conference, an ally of Mrs Braverman said: "This is a treaty which he's putting in legislation - it's just another version of Plan A. He'll be stuck in the courts again."
Labour's shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper accused Mr Sunak of "making more promises and chasing more headlines".
Ministers had known what the problems with the scheme were 18 months ago, she said, adding "if they thought this was the answer, why didn't they do it long ago?"
The Rwandan government has taken issue with the Supreme Court, saying that, while it was a decision for the UK's judicial system, the ruling that Rwanda was not a safe country for asylum seekers was unjustified "given Rwanda's welcoming policy and our record of caring for refugees".
In its judgement, the Supreme Court said the Rwandan government had entered into the agreement in "good faith" but the evidence cast doubt on its "practical ability to fulfil its assurances, at least in the short term", to fix "deficiencies" in its asylum system and see through "the scale of the changes in procedure, understanding and culture which are required".
One asylum seeker told the BBC he thanked the judges "from the bottom of my heart" for their ruling, adding "they treated us with humanity".
Charities, including Oxfam, have welcomed the court's decision and called for the government to look at alternative policies, including opening more legal routes for those seeking asylum.
Greta Thunberg has pleaded not guilty to a public order offence in a London court.
The environmental campaigner was arrested near the InterContinental Hotel in Mayfair on 17 October while protesting a major oil and gas industry conference, the Energy Intelligence Forum, under way inside.
Demonstrators forced the attendees to walk through a "protest of shame" blocking the entrance of the prestigious hotel.
Image:Greenpeace activists demonstrated outside Westminster Magistrates' Court this morning
A group of Greenpeace and Fossil Free London activists gathered outside Westminster Magistrates' Court on Wednesday morning, chanting and holding banners reading "Oily Money Out" and "Make Polluters Pay."
Appearing in court today, the Swedish activist was accused of breaching Section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986, namely failing to leave the highway and continue the protest on the pavement.
If found guilty, she could face a fine of up to £2,500.
Ms Thunberg appeared alongside four other activists, including three from Greenpeace, who were all charged with the same offence. They all pleaded not guilty.
More on Greta Thunberg
Related Topics:
The protesters were granted unconditional bail ahead of a trial at City of London Magistrates' Court in February 2024.
When setting out the circumstances that led to the charge, prosecutor Luke Staton said the industry event brought together "various decision makers" from energy, finance and business in order to "discuss sustainable solutions," which prompted an outburst of laughter from the packed out public gallery.
Advertisement
Ms Thunberg became the face of climate activism after she began staging weekly protests aged 15 in Sweden in 2018.
She now travels the world addressing crowds at marches and protests. On Sunday Ms Thunberg had the microphone snatched from her at a climate rally in Amsterdam after inviting a Palestinian woman and an Afghan woman on stage.
