Its Ok To Destroy Private Property

#21
I think that this adjudication should cause concern. Although it is not a binding decision, not being a Stated Case, there have been similar results before in the case of GM crops and damage to a Hawk a few years ago.
If the green people start to act like the fur people then it won't be safe for us to go out in our Range Rovers.
I suppose that the protesters would love it if there was an electricity shortage.
 
#22
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
That'll be the Septic meaning of 'terrorist' then? What happened in America that made you all forget the difference between criminals and terrorists?
Talk about batshit crazy..... Look out behind you Tomahawk! A terrorist just dropped some islamofascist litter. Prick.
 
#23
BrunoNoMedals said:
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.
Ain't the world a funny place?

I thought the outcome of this trial was rather good and it cheered up my day immensely.

I couldn't give a fcuk about E.on and their featherbedding by the government, or the fact they think that its funny that a cold winter will make them more money.

Coal giant dictates government policy

Chief executive apologises

Wreck the whole joint I say.
 
#24
All aboard who's coming aboard. Ding, ding.
 

Attachments

#25
Dilfor said:
BrunoNoMedals said:
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.
Ain't the world a funny place?

I thought the outcome of this trial was rather good and it cheered up my day immensely.

I couldn't give a fcuk about E.on and their featherbedding by the government, or the fact they think that its funny that a cold winter will make them more money.

Coal giant dictates government policy

Chief executive apologises

Wreck the whole joint I say.
Well I hope you will be happy "living off the land". That is the ultimate aim of these people after all, no elastictrickery or gas or any other form of energy that will help....

I would like to know where it has been proven in a court of law that if we closed down all the power stations in the UK that global warming, sorry climate change now, will er, change.
 
#26
in_the_cheapseats said:
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.
If Global warmimg is such a big threat, coupled with weaking supplies cos Government was too bone to sort it out 10 years ago....Why the f**k is it still ok to leave lights on all night long in totally empty buildings? How many times are you gone past an empty Office block,shopping centre, bus station or other big empty space late at night to see lights on all over the place and nobody there? What's the point of banging on at us and leaving big office blocks lit up for Christmass?
 
#27
schweik said:
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".
Couldnt agree more, i think its right that the jury was alowed to make its own decision on the matter, though im not sure i like the way defendants can choose to have jurors replaced at the start of the trial, should be a widespread cross section of society and thats that.

BrunoNoMedals said:
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.
After saying that though i do agree with bruno, the decision was awfull and I too got quite angry about this.

My take on it is that if the power plant was causing damadge to the point that causing criminal damadge is ok...
Then surely they had a sound legal argument to get it dismantled through the apropriate legal channels? and not to go smash the place up?
 
#28
rockpile said:
I think that this adjudication should cause concern. Although it is not a binding decision, not being a Stated Case, there have been similar results before in the case of GM crops and damage to a Hawk a few years ago.
If the green people start to act like the fur people then it won't be safe for us to go out in our Range Rovers.
I suppose that the protesters would love it if there was an electricity shortage.
That's the key to this whole 'green' issue.

The fastest and most effective way of reducing energy consumption from petrol to Electric is to increase the cost of it, so why the uproar about home energy costs and this 'fuel poverty' crap?

Surely its a good thing to increase the cost of all fuels and spend the profits on insulation, diversification of supply and technologies to reduce usage. (LED bulbs etc...)

If you want cheap fuel then you won't get any cheaper that coal power stations.

If I was the MD of E.on I'd be arranging a 'accidental' 24hour power outage for a few major cities and watch everyone suddenly change their minds about the joys of going green.
 
#29
GINandSHEARS said:
My take on it is that if the power plant was causing damadge to the point that causing criminal damadge is ok...
Then surely they had a sound legal argument to get it dismantled through the apropriate legal channels? and not to go smash the place up?
Exactly. Even if it was necessary and justified (which I don't believe it was - large-scale, human-influenced climate change is a load of balls in my considered opinion) there are better ways to make a point than through vigilante action. I know this is ARRSE and we'd all like a bit of vigilante action on a number of issues (chav safaris, getting a useful government in, etc.) we know it won't happen because, ultimately, it's not the most sensible course.

All this does is provide legitimacy to more actions. Even if no legal precedent is officially set, it does send out a signal that breaking the law and claiming a justification afterwards is not only fine, but can be used as a successful tool for affecting policy and, basically, getting your own way.

I spoke to my housemate about this before - she's got a law degree and I wanted to hear her take. The response, after I mentioned our turbanned friends might be tempted to use a similar excuse:

No silly, that's just called terrorism. I think you have to be British to get away with it. I'm sure the case will go through the civil courts to claim damages and then it will be decided by legally trained judges. The problem is the decision was left to a jury of 12 people who probably have read all the hype about global warming and fear the end of the world. It is only a very weak precedent as the 'lawful excuse' defence is normally thrown out of court for being ridiculous. I only know of three other occasions that it has been successful and it normally related to M.O.D. sites such as army barracks to prevent war and death. In the past it has only been successful when the damage has been caused to try and prevent death. Another case that got thrown out was animal rights activists who caused damage to an animal testing lab. It probably won't hold as a precedent.
Edited to add: Also, I don't think a British court is the place for a headline-seeking septic "scientist" to comment on politics or British policy. He's there for his scientific opinion, not so we can provide him with a soapbox - no doubt paid for by us. Not that it needed any help, but his "contribution" only succeeded in turning the thing into a politically motivated farce.
 
#30
Kitmarlowe said:
in_the_cheapseats said:
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.
If Global warmimg is such a big threat, coupled with weaking supplies cos Government was too bone to sort it out 10 years ago....Why the f**k is it still ok to leave lights on all night long in totally empty buildings? How many times are you gone past an empty Office block,shopping centre, bus station or other big empty space late at night to see lights on all over the place and nobody there? What's the point of banging on at us and leaving big office blocks lit up for Christmass?
Don't disagree with you, mate. One of the things that gets me is when I go to my parents house in the Outer Hebrides, I see stars. Not the pissy few that you see in the South but full blown endless stars with the Milky Way running across the sky.

Why can I see it? Exactly the reason you give. Huge light pollution whenever you are near any town (which means pretty much the whole S of the UK). I'd be perfectly happy with an enforcement policy of energy saving. It should be an easy sell. With electricity the price it is, it makes sense to switch off. If I had my way I'd be switching off (or at least be rationalising their use) of a lot of street lights too. The first lot I'd switch off are the half a dozen that appeared in my folks village a few years ago with euro spending - absolutely pointless.
 
#31
rockpile said:
I think that this adjudication should cause concern. Although it is not a binding decision, not being a Stated Case, there have been similar results before in the case of GM crops and damage to a Hawk a few years ago.

Yes - what a dangerous precedent.

Private individuals manage to, for once, inflict some tiny defeats on the massive combined power of big business and government, who are used to steamrollering all in their path in the name of profit and power.

How will the world continue to go round?

Bring on the power cuts. I've got an allotment.
 
#32
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?
You have totally failed to understand what is going on here.
 
#34
tomahawk6 said:
I think my use of the term terrorist is accurate. The problem is that people cant tell the difference between a criminal act and an act of terrorism.Groups that want to disupt society are terrorists. In the US we have a number of domestic terrorist groups that are a problem in the pacific northwest.

http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/jarboe021202.htm
Do you honestly think that spraying the name of the fattest prime minister in history is going to disrupt society? That Banksie bloke must be about to start a revolution.
 
#35
Yes - what a dangerous precedent.

Private individuals manage to, for once, inflict some tiny defeats on the massive combined power of big business and government, who are used to steamrollering all in their path in the name of profit and power.

How will the world continue to go round?

Bring on the power cuts. I've got an allotment.
You slightly miss the point: the fact that 'massive combined power' has been defeated is arguably good or bad.

The fact that a legal argument focused on stopping mischevious prosecution of people acting on the spur of the moment to help in a dangerous situation (eg, smashing down a door to put out a fire) has been misemployed to excuse belief motivated extra-legal activity is extremely worrying.

Logically, it is difficult to see how this line of argument could not now be deployed to explain, for example, shooting a speeding driver (I believed it would save more lives than his), or - maybe closer to home - having vigilante 'eco-police' marching up to your home and burning it down because you had more lights on than they felt were strictly necessary. Or trashing your neighbour's 4x4 becuase 'they could make do with a less polluting car for all our future good'

It is mob rule being retrospectively applauded. An absolute disgrace, and the judge who (apparently) encouraged the jury to see this side of the argument would, in a right thinking world, now die of hypothermia when the lights go out.
 
#36
Dilfor said:
Bring on the power cuts. I've got an allotment.
Me, me, me.

What about hospitals, oh yes they have backup generators, what happens when the power for them runs out? Shall we just turn all the machines off?

Selfish and narrow minded.
 
#37
RiflemanKnobber said:
Yes - what a dangerous precedent.

Private individuals manage to, for once, inflict some tiny defeats on the massive combined power of big business and government, who are used to steamrollering all in their path in the name of profit and power.

How will the world continue to go round?

Bring on the power cuts. I've got an allotment.
You slightly miss the point: the fact that 'massive combined power' has been defeated is arguably good or bad.

The fact that a legal argument focused on stopping mischevious prosecution of people acting on the spur of the moment to help in a dangerous situation (eg, smashing down a door to put out a fire) has been misemployed to excuse belief motivated extra-legal activity is extremely worrying.

Logically, it is difficult to see how this line of argument could not now be deployed to explain, for example, shooting a speeding driver (I believed it would save more lives than his), or - maybe closer to home - having vigilante 'eco-police' marching up to your home and burning it down because you had more lights on than they felt were strictly necessary. Or trashing your neighbour's 4x4 becuase 'they could make do with a less polluting car for all our future good'

It is mob rule being retrospectively applauded. An absolute disgrace, and the judge who (apparently) encouraged the jury to see this side of the argument would, in a right thinking world, now die of hypothermia when the lights go out.
Christ - how scary can a bunch of crusties be? You must cack yourself when you go past a Big Issue seller.

Given what happened in Enron, I think you ought to look a bit wider at potential threats to your way of life.
 
#38
Dilfor said:
I think you ought to look a bit wider at potential threats to your way of life.
Too true. China for instance. After raising two fingers to the Kyoto treaty, they're building a new, manky, coal fired power station every week and they've recently overtaken USA as the world's biggest polluter. In Beijing, you can't even see the sun at midday, never mind the stars at night.

I suggest the eco-warriors get on the first plane out of Heathrow to Beijing. On arrival, they should descend on the nearest, coal fired power station, climb up the chimney and paint some smart arrsed comments.

Any who survived the attentions of the duty sniper from the local police station would be off to jail to be tissue typed and prepped for involuntary organ donation. I believe in some places they'd even be skinned to provide raw material for collagen implants.

How's that for an aggressive recycling programme?
 
#39
Ancient_Mariner said:
Dilfor said:
I think you ought to look a bit wider at potential threats to your way of life.
Too true. China for instance. After raising two fingers to the Kyoto treaty, they're building a new, manky, coal fired power station every week and they've recently overtaken USA as the world's biggest polluter. In Beijing, you can't even see the sun at midday, never mind the stars at night.

I suggest the eco-warriors get on the first plane out of Heathrow to Beijing. On arrival, they should descend on the nearest, coal fired power station, climb up the chimney and paint some smart arrsed comments.

Any who survived the attentions of the duty sniper from the local police station would be off to jail to be tissue typed and prepped for involuntary organ donation. I believe in some places they'd even be skinned to provide raw material for collagen implants.

How's that for an aggressive recycling programme?
True and highly amusing :wink:
 
#40
Ancient_Mariner said:
Dilfor said:
I think you ought to look a bit wider at potential threats to your way of life.
Too true. China for instance. After raising two fingers to the Kyoto treaty, they're building a new, manky, coal fired power station every week and they've recently overtaken USA as the world's biggest polluter. In Beijing, you can't even see the sun at midday, never mind the stars at night.

I suggest the eco-warriors get on the first plane out of Heathrow to Beijing. On arrival, they should descend on the nearest, coal fired power station, climb up the chimney and paint some smart arrsed comments.

Any who survived the attentions of the duty sniper from the local police station would be off to jail to be tissue typed and prepped for involuntary organ donation. I believe in some places they'd even be skinned to provide raw material for collagen implants.

How's that for an aggressive recycling programme?
China scares me too; never mind the sun, you're lucky if you can see 200 yards down the road; perpetual twilight and smog that burns your eyes and throat. I liken it to breathing the contents of an ashtray.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top