Extinction Rebellion protesters - what to do?

I think I have shared this one before - back in the bad old days CND decided to show how vulnerable the trains carrying nuclear material were by making a mock up of an RPG and standing on a platform on ‘middle of the no-where by sea’ station as one of those trains went by.

Cue much wailing and gnashing of teeth and why ’someone’ didn’t ‘do something.

British Rail then issued a statement that it wasn’t against any rail byelaws to carry a bazooka onto the premises of train station.

Finally section 5(1)(ae) of the Firearms Act 1968 makes sense. General offence should one have in their possession, acquire, or purchase -

any rocket launcher, or any mortar, for projecting a stabilised missile, other than a launcher or mortar designed for line-throwing or pyrotechnic purposes or as signalling apparatus

You can tell it was a railway, BTP are useless. Anyone else would have just locked up someone for Breach of the Peace and "sorted it out back at the nick".

("So Boumer, why was PACE brought in? Funny you ask let me tell you about some people I heard about in the Met")
 

NSP

LE
More eco-halfwittery from a jury.

Extinction Rebellion: Jury clears protesters dragged off train roof

Apparently, the offence of obstructing a train is not an offence (despite actually obstructing a train) if you have a deeply held christian faith, or somesuch.

That's alright then.

I think someone needs to explain to juries in general that guilty or not guilty is on the basis of fact, not feeling. It is for the judge to render sentence including mitigating circumstance.
In the case that started the ball rolling for the jury ignoring the evidence in favour of their political views the judge had actually directed the jury to find the defendants guilty as the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated that they had committed the offences with which they were charged.

Perhaps if, on the return of verdict, the judge had thought to charge all twelve with perverting the course of justice it might have nipped this new "trend" in the bud before it took root.
 
In the case that started the ball rolling for the jury ignoring the evidence in favour of their political views the judge had actually directed the jury to find the defendants guilty as the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated that they had committed the offences with which they were charged.

Perhaps if, on the return of verdict, the judge had thought to charge all twelve with perverting the course of justice it might have nipped this new "trend" in the bud before it took root.

I am struggling to think of a stated case that could even stretch that to such circumstances.

It's on a par with charging every convicted defendant with perjury for a not guilty plea.

Outside of Pritti Patel's fantasies, not likely to happen.
 
I am struggling to think of a stated case that could even stretch that to such circumstances.

It's on a par with charging every convicted defendant with perjury for a not guilty plea.

Outside of Pritti Patel's fantasies, not likely to happen.
Having ignored a judge's direction, is a jury necessary? Contempt of court, or perverting the course: either would do for me.

[Just so we're in no doubt, I'd like to be in one of Priti's fantasies too.]
 
I am struggling to think of a stated case that could even stretch that to such circumstances.

It's on a par with charging every convicted defendant with perjury for a not guilty plea.

Outside of Pritti Patel's fantasies, not likely to happen.
Think the only way to avoid “conscience” defences is to ban them, but again, slippery slope.

I’d say put it back to Magistrate level, but seeing the fines issued to the people doing criminal damage on behalf of Extinction Rebellion, even that’s not an answer.
 
Think the only way to avoid “conscience” defences is to ban them, but again, slippery slope.

I’d say put it back to Magistrate level, but seeing the fines issued to the people doing criminal damage on behalf of Extinction Rebellion, even that’s not an answer.

Thing is magistrates would see that coming a mile off, and decline jurisdiction and send to the Crown court on ground of "insufficient sentencing powers".

They require courts to take account of:

  • The full impact of arson or criminal damage such as vandalism on national heritage assets including listed buildings, historic objects or unique parts of national heritage and history.
  • The economic or social impact of damaging public amenities and services such as a fire at a school or community centre, or criminal damage at a train station, which can adversely affect local communities or cause economic hardship to neighbouring houses or businesses.
  • The effect on communities when an area’s emergency services or resources are diverted to deal with an incident of criminal activity.
The guidelines will help to ensure that sentencing by judges and magistrates will be consistent across the whole range of offences covered by the guideline. Limited guidance exists in magistrates’ courts, but the guidelines apply to all courts.


Since criminal damage is triable on indictment, they can get them sent up the big house.
 

Bordon/hants

War Hero
The cheeky ER buggers are costing the tax payer (pro rata) more then the MOD are spending on hire cars.
Which in itself is a bit ironic! (see another thread for the hot info non story).

Maybe if the Bill had turned up and just hoiked them into vans and then dumped them 30 miles away in the sticks, then went back to base or a brew it may have been less.

Instead of standing around offering them comforts and biscuits and legal advice and protecting them from irate drivers for hours at a time........Just an idea.

To be fair this latter approach was less and less employed as the protests wore on , but you still had the keystone videos of hapless officers pulling the nuggets of the road, who as soon as released just went back and sat down.

I have more tyraps in my toolbox than these noddies seem to carry, it's not rocket science use them.
 
Last edited:
You know, I'm old enough to remember the outrage when the Countryside Alliance people were battered.

It's funny really, people are all for people getting battered. As long as it is anyone you don't like getting battered.

Oh well, such is life.
 

theoriginalphantom

MIA
Book Reviewer
The daft buggers are at it again


this time glued out of the way of vehicles

Four Insulate Britain protesters have left a hearing and glued themselves to the steps of the Royal Courts of Justice in London.
Theresa Norton, 63, Diana Warner, 62, El Litten, 35 and Steve Pritchard, 62, described their walkout as "a show of resistance".
They, and 16 others, were due to answer charges of contempt of court.

The gates to the court building were locked, shutting the protesters inside the Royal Courts of Justice grounds, while a small number of other demonstrators and police gathered outside.
 
You know, I'm old enough to remember the outrage when the Countryside Alliance people were battered.

It's funny really, people are all for people getting battered. As long as it is anyone you don't like getting battered.

Oh well, such is life.
Too bloody right. I was among those getting battered. No one asked me if I was alright and was there anything I needed to make me comfortable? It was also noted at the time that the normally very vocal "anti police" commentators were very very quiet.
 

NSP

LE
The daft buggers are at it again


this time glued out of the way of vehicles
How long did it take before the police unhitched them? I s'pose it's a bit harder for Plod to ignore the orders of a judge than it is an angry plumber or bloke trying to get his stroke-stricken mum to hospital.
 
Last edited:

mrdude

On ROPS
On ROPs
You know, I'm old enough to remember the outrage when the Countryside Alliance people were battered.

It's funny really, people are all for people getting battered. As long as it is anyone you don't like getting battered.

Oh well, such is life.
There's loads of videos of the anti fox hunter lot being battered:



The ones that batter them never seem to get prosecuted, probably because the type that usually go fox hunting seem to be beyond the law.
 
There's loads of videos of the anti fox hunter lot being battered:



The ones that batter them never seem to get prosecuted, probably because the type that usually go fox hunting seem to be beyond the law.

The whipping probably confuses the judges, they pay good money for that kind of thing and are just upset about the plebs getting it for free
 

Londo

LE

Latest Threads

Top