• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

Its Ok To Destroy Private Property

#1
Six Greenpeace activists acquitted for damaging a power plant to reduce carbon emissions ? How batshit crazy do you have to be to let those terrorists walk ?

http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...arming-justifies-breaking-the-law-925561.html

The threat of global warming is so great that campaigners were justified in causing more than £35,000 worth of damage to a coal-fired power station, a jury decided yesterday. In a verdict that will have shocked ministers and energy companies the jury at Maidstone Crown Court cleared six Greenpeace activists of criminal damage.


Jurors accepted defence arguments that the six had a "lawful excuse" to damage property at Kingsnorth power station in Kent to prevent even greater damage caused by climate change. The defence of "lawful excuse" under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 allows damage to be caused to property to prevent even greater damage – such as breaking down the door of a burning house to tackle a fire.
 
#3
tomahawk6 said:
Six Greenpeace activists acquitted for damaging a power plant to reduce carbon emissions ? How batshit crazy do you have to be to let those terrorists walk ?

http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...arming-justifies-breaking-the-law-925561.html

The threat of global warming is so great that campaigners were justified in causing more than £35,000 worth of damage to a coal-fired power station, a jury decided yesterday. In a verdict that will have shocked ministers and energy companies the jury at Maidstone Crown Court cleared six Greenpeace activists of criminal damage.


Jurors accepted defence arguments that the six had a "lawful excuse" to damage property at Kingsnorth power station in Kent to prevent even greater damage caused by climate change. The defence of "lawful excuse" under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 allows damage to be caused to property to prevent even greater damage – such as breaking down the door of a burning house to tackle a fire.
I suppose OJ was innocent in 1995 too?
 

Legs

ADC
Book Reviewer
#5
See, I thought about this. It seems to me that they were aquitted because their crimes were justified because they were campaigning against (alleged) man made climate change.

Now my thoughts went on to this:

Gordon One-Eye spouts nothing but sh!t and hot air. Sh!t produces methane which is (again allegedly) proven to cause climate change. Hot air also is bound to cause some sort of global warming. So to stop such pollutants I think that (following the earlier precedent) we could do criminal damage to HIM and get away with it.

The sort of criminal damage I'm on about is, of course, pretty fatal.





Edited for schpellung 'cos I typed this too fast before my boss caught me and told me off for ARRSEing about during work time!
 
#6
Thread creep I know. Our government has been trying to impose a tax on

dairy farmers because of all the farting the animals do. No one mentions

all the farting that people do. How come? Should we all wear a

Fartometer and be taxed according to the amount of methane we

produce? Create a few jobs for meter readers too.
 
#7
The defence of "lawful excuse" under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 allows damage to be caused to property to prevent even greater damage – such as breaking down the door of a burning house to tackle a fire.
[/quote]

. . . or bombing Parliament to save the rest of the country?
 
#8
basso said:
Thread creep I know. Our government has been trying to impose a tax on dairy farmers because of all the farting the animals do.
Just typical of the knee-jerk reactions to 'fashionable' causes, with no reference to the real world. Fcuking Liabore.
 
#9
It is an interesting case. It highlights growing awareness that environmental damage really is bad. It is also precedent set although I'll bet there is some sort of appeal.

I don't agree with the jury's interpretation of the law (if that is what it is) but I have sympathy about why the damage was done. I suppose that puts makes me into some sort of tree hugger but hey, if this case does wake up the PTB to realising the strength of feeling about the dissatisfaction on energy policy, it can only be a good thing.
 
#10
It's the Judge who instructed the jury to consider this 'excuse.'
I would have argued that the damage caused could not outweigh level of global pollution but the current trend set by the Govt and CJS seems to be a bit skewed(and that's prob why I work for the RMP, and not the CPS...).
 
#11
Ninja_Turtle said:
It's the Judge who instructed the jury to consider this 'excuse.'
I would have argued that the damage caused could not outweigh level of global pollution but the current trend set by the Govt and CJS seems to be a bit skewed(and that's prob why I work for the RMP, and not the CPS...).
You're correct of course but the fact is the jury was allowed to debate the liaibility of the excuse to come to the decision it did.
 
#12
SadisticToaster said:
The defence of "lawful excuse" under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 allows damage to be caused to property to prevent even greater damage – such as breaking down the door of a burning house to tackle a fire.
. . . or bombing Parliament to save the rest of the country?[/quote]

Hmmmm. If this kind of "for the greater good" defence succeeds, it does make you wonder whether assassination has recently been, shall we say, undervalued as a political tool. :wink:


Multiple inset quotey thing appears to be on the fritz?
 
#14
Legs said:
See, I thought about this. It seems to me that they were aquitted because their crimes were justified because they were campaigning against (alleged) man made climate change.

Now my thoughts went on to this:

Gordon One-Eye spouts nothing but sh!t and hot air. Sh!t produces methane which is (again allegedly) proven to cause climate change. Hot air also is bound to cause some sort of global warming. So to stop such pollutants I think that (following the earlier precedent) we could do criminal damage to HIM and get away with it.

The sort of criminal damage I'm on about is, of course, pretty fatal.





Edited for schpellung 'cos I typed this too fast before my boss caught me and told me off for ARRSEing about during work time!
Here here legs, do you need a hand dispatching Cyclops or do you have it under control?
 
#15
As I have sid before our Government is week and our Judicial System is week and this all makes the efforts of our police force futile!!

Thats what happens whn you let libberals or commies in to power!!

Dave
 
#16
does this mean that it is ok for the BNP to kill anyone who isnt white and get away with it then? NO of course not, so why should these bunch of hippy c*nts get away with what they are doing?
 
#17
Contrariwise, if it's not ok to destroy private property in a higher cause, NATO can look forward to getting sued by a great many swarthy gentlemen over the next wee while.

Lights touchpaper and saunters off whistling.
 
#18
Barkers said:
Would the last Briton out of the country.......well you know the rest!
I would imagine that most people on this site would disagree with the jury's decision. Fair enough, we're all fully entitled to our own view.

Occasionally juries come up with perverse decisions. But I'm glad we have a legal system that allows for independent minded jurors to come to their own decision. I'm also glad that, even where I don't agree with a particular jury, these decisions sometimes fly in the face of what the "state" in the form of the CPS is after. It makes us all think about the proper limits of liberty and the law, and it keeps a rein on the activities of the "state".
 
#19
From the article

Last year, three protesters managed to paint Gordon Brown's name on the plant's chimney. Their handi-work cost £35,000 to remove.
Thats a lot of money to remove some paint, the cost of which will be passed on to the consumer and not the lovable little eco warriors. How does painting 'Gordon Brown' onto a chimney prevent environmental damage? Seriously, I could could understand it if they blocked a pipe that was pouring chemical waste into a lake, but painting a name on a chimney?
I hope the paints used were water/vegetable based and not any of those nasty polluting chemical ones. How much damage did the clean up operation do to the environment?
 
#20
Since I joined ARRSE I've read a number of threads that have made me feel a little ill or shed a tear. This has to be the most successful to date. I truly despair.
 

Latest Threads