Its Ok To Destroy Private Property

#41
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.
Absolutely correct AM, but I didn't even want to get into the fact that their stated aims (save the planet from the evils of coal fired power) are utterly pointless if all they worry about is the UK. Ignoring rhetoric and emotion for a moment, we are planning, IIRC, 8 - yes, a full, evil nasty, eight - of these over the next twenty years - all of which will have to comply with stringent greenhouse gas emission targets/safety rules etc.

Meanwhile China and India are hurling up at least two every week between them (and that's a conservative estimate).

So, even if one were to focus on the environmental aspects, this is about equivalent to emptying the ocean by removing a cupful of water.

But that's not the point, and Dilfor is being willfully stupid. I do not regard this 'bunch of crusties' as scary - just pathetic and deluded fools. What is scary is that a jury of their peers can see this sort of behaviour as justifiable in law. I repeat, if that is upheld, we are on a slippery slope. I believe that wind turbines threaten bee colonies with their nasty rotating blades, and that the pollination of flowers by bees is all that stands between us and eco-meltdown when the plant food chain dies off and we all starve. So I'm going out tomorrow to sabotage ten of them - and by this interpretation of the law, I'm doing us all a favour and must be praised and cannot be found guilty of any criminal act... :roll:
 
#42
Dilfor said:
I thought the outcome of this trial was rather good and it cheered up my day immensely.
Completely agree - outstanding result and I, for one, hope it withstands any appeal process.

We've all been subject to relentless taxes and political manipulation in the name of the house-of-cards that is Global Warming theory. All along, the Government has found it in their best interest to make us all believe.

Looks like the Genie may be granting them their wish :wink:
 
#43
Ancient_Mariner said:
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.
What a facetious idea. Eco-warriors on a plane? Unthinkable.


RiflemanKnobber said:
I believe that wind turbines threaten bee colonies with their nasty rotating blades, and that the pollination of flowers by bees is all that stands between us and eco-meltdown when the plant food chain dies off and we all starve. So I'm going out tomorrow to sabotage ten of them - and by this interpretation of the law, I'm doing us all a favour and must be praised and cannot be found guilty of any criminal act...
Let me know where you are going, and I will bring my boltcroppers along to assist your speedy passage. Confused? Read this.
 
#44
RiflemanKnobber said:
But that's not the point, and Dilfor is being willfully stupid. I do not regard this 'bunch of crusties' as scary - just pathetic and deluded fools. What is scary is that a jury of their peers can see this sort of behaviour as justifiable in law. I repeat, if that is upheld, we are on a slippery slope. I believe that wind turbines threaten bee colonies with their nasty rotating blades, and that the pollination of flowers by bees is all that stands between us and eco-meltdown when the plant food chain dies off and we all starve. So I'm going out tomorrow to sabotage ten of them - and by this interpretation of the law, I'm doing us all a favour and must be praised and cannot be found guilty of any criminal act... :roll:
Slippery slope my dog's c0ck.

They painted half a slogan on a chimney. Whether their science is right or wrong I don't give a sh1t - but I do give a sh1t about the ability of people to protest about things they dislike, and not be curtailed by a government in cahoots with a private company.

If you want to paint slogans about bees on wind turbines, and can get someone to back your arguments up in court, then crack on. I'm right behind you. In fact, if you want to write 'Greenpeace are a right load of cnuts' across the Thames Barrier and have evidence to prove it, then I'll lend you some paint.
 
#45
They painted half a slogan on a chimney. Whether their science is right or wrong I don't give a sh1t - but I do give a sh1t about the ability of people to protest about things they dislike, and not be curtailed by a government in cahoots with a private company.
Protest yes - break into private property, and vandalise to the tune of tens of thousands, no.

Again, you are deliberately missing the point. If I decide your car is harming the environment, and 'protest' by painting 'this is a nasty bad person's car' all over it, causing you to have to pay for clean up before you can see to drive, by this logic I am acting in good faith and should not be fined.

Conversely, if I 'protest' by camping in the road and bellowing abuse at you, I'm still a thick, whinging tosser of a mong from the planet 'never let reason interfere with my stupid emotional beliefs because then I'd actually have to think before screwing up other people's lives', but I'm not damaging other people's property (however slightly) and expecting it to be justified in law.

Protest is entirely acceptable cretinism, and we should allow fools to engage in it - it stops them doing more serious damage to the fabric of society.

Trashing other people's property - or claiming that 'special circumstances' allow you to do anything else with it - is tinkering with the basic premise of private property rights that was first stated formally in Magna Carta, and I don't like the idea that we can bin that (along with every other right this bunch of political pygmies has trashed) because a bunch of wrong headed mongs think its ok to do so. Ask Zimbabweans how that line of reasoning has worked out recently. Mob rule, or arbitrary seizure/destruction of someone else's 'stuff', is what we have spent about 1000 years trying to move away from, and now a judge and jury have endorsed it. Super.
 
#46
RiflemanKnobber said:
They painted half a slogan on a chimney. Whether their science is right or wrong I don't give a sh1t - but I do give a sh1t about the ability of people to protest about things they dislike, and not be curtailed by a government in cahoots with a private company.
Protest yes - break into private property, and vandalise to the tune of tens of thousands, no.

Again, you are deliberately missing the point. If I decide your car is harming the environment, and 'protest' by painting 'this is a nasty bad person's car' all over it, causing you to have to pay for clean up before you can see to drive, by this logic I am acting in good faith and should not be fined.

Conversely, if I 'protest' by camping in the road and bellowing abuse at you, I'm still a thick, whinging tosser of a mong from the planet 'never let reason interfere with my stupid emotional beliefs because then I'd actually have to think before screwing up other people's lives', but I'm not damaging other people's property (however slightly) and expecting it to be justified in law.

Protest is entirely acceptable cretinism, and we should allow fools to engage in it - it stops them doing more serious damage to the fabric of society.

Trashing other people's property - or claiming that 'special circumstances' allow you to do anything else with it - is tinkering with the basic premise of private property rights that was first stated formally in Magna Carta, and I don't like the idea that we can bin that (along with every other right this bunch of political pygmies has trashed) because a bunch of wrong headed mongs think its ok to do so. Ask Zimbabweans how that line of reasoning has worked out recently. Mob rule, or arbitrary seizure/destruction of someone else's 'stuff', is what we have spent about 1000 years trying to move away from, and now a judge and jury have endorsed it. Super.
RK - totally agree.
 
#47
Dilfor said:
RiflemanKnobber said:
But that's not the point, and Dilfor is being willfully stupid. I do not regard this 'bunch of crusties' as scary - just pathetic and deluded fools. What is scary is that a jury of their peers can see this sort of behaviour as justifiable in law. I repeat, if that is upheld, we are on a slippery slope. I believe that wind turbines threaten bee colonies with their nasty rotating blades, and that the pollination of flowers by bees is all that stands between us and eco-meltdown when the plant food chain dies off and we all starve. So I'm going out tomorrow to sabotage ten of them - and by this interpretation of the law, I'm doing us all a favour and must be praised and cannot be found guilty of any criminal act... :roll:
Slippery slope my dog's c0ck.

They painted half a slogan on a chimney. Whether their science is right or wrong I don't give a sh1t - but I do give a sh1t about the ability of people to protest about things they dislike, and not be curtailed by a government in cahoots with a private company.

If you want to paint slogans about bees on wind turbines, and can get someone to back your arguments up in court, then crack on. I'm right behind you. In fact, if you want to write 'Greenpeace are a right load of cnuts' across the Thames Barrier and have evidence to prove it, then I'll lend you some paint.
What about a bunch of militant, spiky haired lesbians painting 'Dead Men Don't Rape' on the local war memorial the night before Rememberance Sunday? That happened in the town where I lived a few years ago.
 
#48
Ancient_Mariner said:
Dilfor said:
RiflemanKnobber said:
But that's not the point, blah blah blah... :roll:
Slippery slope my dog's c0ck.

Blah blah blah...
What about a bunch of militant, spiky haired lesbians painting 'Dead Men Don't Rape' on the local war memorial the night before Rememberance Sunday? That happened in the town where I lived a few years ago.
As ever, the point is being lost. Its not about whether criminal damage is right or wrong, its about people exercising their legitimate rights and the law allowing them to take direct action to do so.

Now I for one do not have much love for GreenPeace, but they are persuing their democratic rights, and legally so in this case (pending any appeal by e-on). There cannot be one rule for those whose opinions we support and another for those we disagree with.
 
#49
As ever, the point is being lost. Its not about whether criminal damage is right or wrong, its about people exercising their legitimate rights and the law allowing them to take direct action to do so.

Now I for one do not have much love for GreenPeace, but they are persuing their democratic rights, and legally so in this case (pending any appeal by e-on). There cannot be one rule for those whose opinions we support and another for those we disagree with.
Precisely, but you've got it 100% wrong. It is their legitimate right to protest - but it is not their legitimate right to damage other people's property...

Why is that such a hard concept for people to grasp? yes to peaceful protest, but no to fecking with someone else's possessions/kit/whatever????
 
#50
RiflemanKnobber said:
As ever, the point is being lost. Its not about whether criminal damage is right or wrong, its about people exercising their legitimate rights and the law allowing them to take direct action to do so.

Now I for one do not have much love for GreenPeace, but they are persuing their democratic rights, and legally so in this case (pending any appeal by e-on). There cannot be one rule for those whose opinions we support and another for those we disagree with.
Precisely, but you've got it 100% wrong. It is their legitimate right to protest - but it is not their legitimate right to damage other people's property...

Why is that such a hard concept for people to grasp? yes to peaceful protest, but no to fecking with someone else's possessions/kit/whatever????
In your opinion, maybe, but not in the eyes of the law, where there are circumstances where it is lawful to cause damage to other people's property. Now we may not agree with the jury in this case deciding that this was not criminal damage, but that does not alter the fact that the law allows for such situations.
 
#51
RiflemanKnobber said:
Precisely, but you've got it 100% wrong. It is their legitimate right to protest - but it is not their legitimate right to damage other people's property...

Why is that such a hard concept for people to grasp? yes to peaceful protest, but no to fecking with someone else's possessions/kit/whatever????
They wrote someones name on a tower, hardly life threatening is it.

I can imagine the jury thinking that;

1. Its a waste of the courts time
2. The company can easily affort the (suspiciously high) £35,00 loose change to wipe some graffitti off.
3. If the crusties had of done some real physical damage to the infrastructure of the station they'd of taken it seriously.
4. This will be good for a giggle.

Like I said, turn the power stations off and every green campaigner will be swinging from the nearest lampost by their own entrails within the day.
 
#52
Joe_Private said:
RiflemanKnobber said:
As ever, the point is being lost. Its not about whether criminal damage is right or wrong, its about people exercising their legitimate rights and the law allowing them to take direct action to do so.

Now I for one do not have much love for GreenPeace, but they are persuing their democratic rights, and legally so in this case (pending any appeal by e-on). There cannot be one rule for those whose opinions we support and another for those we disagree with.
Precisely, but you've got it 100% wrong. It is their legitimate right to protest - but it is not their legitimate right to damage other people's property...

Why is that such a hard concept for people to grasp? yes to peaceful protest, but no to fecking with someone else's possessions/kit/whatever????
In your opinion, maybe, but not in the eyes of the law, where there are circumstances where it is lawful to cause damage to other people's property. Now we may not agree with the jury in this case deciding that this was not criminal damage, but that does not alter the fact that the law allows for such situations.
I love the jury system, when a bloke can shoot the scum who killed their child whilst driving when disqualified - and be found not guilty by jury in a court of law - you know that something works.
 
#53
IT_Guy said:
RiflemanKnobber said:
Precisely, but you've got it 100% wrong. It is their legitimate right to protest - but it is not their legitimate right to damage other people's property...

Why is that such a hard concept for people to grasp? yes to peaceful protest, but no to fecking with someone else's possessions/kit/whatever????
They wrote someones name on a tower, hardly life threatening is it.

I can imagine the jury thinking that;

1. Its a waste of the courts time
2. The company can easily affort the (suspiciously high) £35,00 loose change to wipe some graffitti off.
3. If the crusties had of done some real physical damage to the infrastructure of the station they'd of taken it seriously.
4. This will be good for a giggle.

Like I said, turn the power stations off and every green campaigner will be swinging from the nearest lampost by their own entrails within the day.

Thats exactly the point that most people here seem to be missing. Or, rather, the reverse is the actual point. Whatever the damage done here, the verdict means that destruction of property is a legitimate form of protest. Because of the decision of this jury, they could actually have got away with destruction of the plant provided nobody was hurt.

As for those who said that it is right for juries to be given full run, it isn't. This is completely the fault of the judge and is appealable. The fact is that juries are not trained to interpret the law and should therefore be guided by the judge as to which evidence they should discard and which they should attach particular importance. The judge plainly did not point out that this argument is fallatious and that the jury should have sent the b*stards down for a couple of years.
 
#54
jew_unit said:
IT_Guy said:
RiflemanKnobber said:
Precisely, but you've got it 100% wrong. It is their legitimate right to protest - but it is not their legitimate right to damage other people's property...

Why is that such a hard concept for people to grasp? yes to peaceful protest, but no to fecking with someone else's possessions/kit/whatever????
They wrote someones name on a tower, hardly life threatening is it.

I can imagine the jury thinking that;

1. Its a waste of the courts time
2. The company can easily affort the (suspiciously high) £35,00 loose change to wipe some graffitti off.
3. If the crusties had of done some real physical damage to the infrastructure of the station they'd of taken it seriously.
4. This will be good for a giggle.

Like I said, turn the power stations off and every green campaigner will be swinging from the nearest lampost by their own entrails within the day.

Thats exactly the point that most people here seem to be missing. Or, rather, the reverse is the actual point. Whatever the damage done here, the verdict means that destruction of property is a legitimate form of protest. Because of the decision of this jury, they could actually have got away with destruction of the plant provided nobody was hurt.

As for those who said that it is right for juries to be given full run, it isn't. This is completely the fault of the judge and is appealable. The fact is that juries are not trained to interpret the law and should therefore be guided by the judge as to which evidence they should discard and which they should attach particular importance. The judge plainly did not point out that this argument is fallatious and that the jury should have sent the b*stards down for a couple of years.
A bad call by the jury, but in some cases it can be justified. The Hawk trashing BAe suffered in 1996 is a textbook example. The powers that be knew those aircraft were going to be used to bomb civilians (in 96, Suharto was still in and occupying East Timor), yet they were still being sold anyway.
 
#55
jew_unit said:
...As for those who said that it is right for juries to be given full run, it isn't. This is completely the fault of the judge and is appealable. The fact is that juries are not trained to interpret the law and should therefore be guided by the judge as to which evidence they should discard and which they should attach particular importance. The judge plainly did not point out that this argument is fallatious and that the jury should have sent the b*stards down for a couple of years.
Who said juries should be given full run?

I agree that he verdict was reached as a consequence of the direction or otherwise of the judge, but feel that Judge Caddick is better placed than you to decide whether or not the defence argument was fallacious, and which evidence the jury should consider.

I have no doubt that e-on will be considering an appeal, and we will see what happens when a panel of more senior judges review this. Or would you like to second-guess them?
 
#56
Joe_Private said:
jew_unit said:
...As for those who said that it is right for juries to be given full run, it isn't. This is completely the fault of the judge and is appealable. The fact is that juries are not trained to interpret the law and should therefore be guided by the judge as to which evidence they should discard and which they should attach particular importance. The judge plainly did not point out that this argument is fallatious and that the jury should have sent the b*stards down for a couple of years.
Who said juries should be given full run?

I agree that he verdict was reached as a consequence of the direction or otherwise of the judge, but feel that Judge Caddick is better placed than you to decide whether or not the defence argument was fallacious, and which evidence the jury should consider.

I have no doubt that e-on will be considering an appeal, and we will see what happens when a panel of more senior judges review this. Or would you like to second-guess them?
What exactly is a jury for? A jury of guys and girls off the street, average in every way, random people who would rather be elsewere.

Not opinionated and highly paid judges, politicians, lawyers, self serving industrialists and associated hangers on.

In the whole scheme of things they decided that everyone should get a life and worry about something else, whats the big deal?
 
#57
I know this is an old thread but WTF who cares?

If the protesters had managed to shut the power station down for even 1 minute then I'm sure the jury would have found then guilty. Because every member of the jury would have had to reset all their clocks and timers and may have missed that oh-so important episode of Come Dancing they set the timed recorder for.
 
#58
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.
Indeed, what he said Dude...
 
#59
IT_Guy said:
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.
Given the number of power stations that are going to reach the end of their life within the next 10 years, this will happen anyway if more coal fired stations are not built sharpish. Still, the environmentalists can rest easy because these are simply a stop gap between now and the point at which the new nukes - with zero CO2 emissions - come online.

Joe_Private said:
Let me know where you are going, and I will bring my boltcroppers along to assist your speedy passage.
:D
 
#60
PartTimePongo said:
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.
Indeed, what he said Dude...
You people just don't see it do you.....ah well you just carry on in your "lets all hug, we just love the planet and all we need is love" world.

The truth is that a couple of coal plants in the UK is a drop in the ocean compared to what the world as a whole produces. Notwithstanding that it has never been proven that temperature follows CO2 or CO2 follows temperature......

Could you just post some graphs please?
 

Latest Threads

Top