Its Ok To Destroy Private Property

#61
No, I was thinking that the damage the hippies did was inconsequential, compared to the blatant pisstake, machinations and sheer greedy wrecking of the energy companies. Nothing tree-hugging about my or Dilfors' sentiments.

I can almost guarantee the Jury, who have probably all just had their latest bills, thought the same.
 
#62
jew_unit said:
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.
That's a bit of an exaggeration. They got away with defacing property. It's a bit of a stretch to call that 'damage'; 'destruction' is definitely over-egging the pudding. I've no doubt the jury would have decided differently if the protesters had been actually damaging it.
 
#63
I think at least part of the power station had to be shut down because they were on the chimney? Hence the huge cost of the stunt - which will be passed onto consumers.
 
#64
LISpace said:
I think at least part of the power station had to be shut down because they were on the chimney? Hence the huge cost of the stunt - which will be passed onto consumers.
Somewhat reminiscent of the recent industrial action at Grangemouth refinery. The company 'had to' shut down the plant, and flash it up again, which resulted in several days loss of production, and fuel shortages at pumps across Scotland and N England. Only thing is, the safety personnel had to be on site throughout the whole period anyway, making the shutdown far from necessary. The companies involved will not lose out financially, as they will write it of as a loss on their end-of-year statements. The only losers are the consumer and the taxpayer.
 
#65
Any more protesters cause material loss to consumers or taxpayers and I might seriously consider looking into seeing why we don't already some kind of "third party" organisation that represents the people who receive the end product.

Someone's got to hang the environmentalists from their entrails, right? :D.
 
#66
Do remember a certain somebody in this thread had admitted to been a bobble hat and would willingly go around cutting locks off land owners gates in the countryside if he thinks he would like to have a walk down their property that paticular day.
 
#67
vampireuk said:
Do remember a certain somebody in this thread had admitted to been a bobble hat and would willingly go around cutting locks off land owners gates in the countryside if he thinks he would like to have a walk down their property that paticular day.
What I said was that to remove a padlock and chain which was obstructing a legal right of way did not constitute criminal damage, and my point of view would appear to have been substantiated by the considered opinion of the jury in this case.

Furthermore, I believe that I denied having a bobble hat though admitted to being a member of the Ramblers Association.
 
#69
I bet the environmentalists would be up in arms if we decided to go down to to Southend Pier on 25 Oct (Linky) and started cutting holes in and spray painting the Rainbow Warrior. We could justify it by saying that we disagreed with their philosophy and wanted to protest about the way they conduct their protests. I bet that we would not get away with that sort of criminal damage.

At the end of the day criminal damage is criminal damage. The only time it is justified, is when you are trying to prevent serious injury, or imminent death and/or destruction (for the greenies out there, a coal fired power station does not constitute imminent death and/or destruction), or when sanctioned by a senior police officer or judge, in the form of a warrant.

As stated if this judgement is not reversed at appeal, it will open the flood gates for all kinds of direct action protests, which we, as tax payers, will have to pay for the extra policing and most likely the clean-up afterwards.

Ish.
 
#70
Joe_Private said:
vampireuk said:
Do remember a certain somebody in this thread had admitted to been a bobble hat and would willingly go around cutting locks off land owners gates in the countryside if he thinks he would like to have a walk down their property that paticular day.
What I said was that to remove a padlock and chain which was obstructing a legal right of way did not constitute criminal damage, and my point of view would appear to have been substantiated by the considered opinion of the jury in this case.

Furthermore, I believe that I denied having a bobble hat though admitted to being a member of the Ramblers Association.
No you constantly brought up red herrings into your discussion just like you are doing again. This case used the exception of allowing criminal damage to prevent further damage, how would you cutting a lock off private property prevent any damage? Don't be suprised if you end up getting shot at if you cut around the countryside with bolt croppers, I bet farmers love you.
 
#71
I'll just put a sign on all the local fields :) .
Seems caring and considerate at first ;) .

"Ramblers may cross the field for free, but the bull charges" :D .
 
#72
I love the ramblers, they go around destroying peoples property and harassing anybody who dares to use a vehicle in the countryside.
 
#73
Including going and trying (and succeeding IIRC) in getting a load of green lanes closed to off-road motorcycles.

As a bunch, ramblers seem to want it all their own way.
 
#74
smartascarrots said:
jew_unit said:
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.
That's a bit of an exaggeration. They got away with defacing property. It's a bit of a stretch to call that 'damage'; 'destruction' is definitely over-egging the pudding. I've no doubt the jury would have decided differently if the protesters had been actually damaging it.
I agree with your last statement, but unfortunately this is criminal damage and this decision now means that actual damage must be treated in the same way (due to law by precedent). That is, of course, unless this case is turned over at appeal which seems at least likely.
 
#75
Joe_Private said:
Somewhat reminiscent of the recent industrial action at Grangemouth refinery. The company 'had to' shut down the plant, and flash it up again, which resulted in several days loss of production, and fuel shortages at pumps across Scotland and N England. Only thing is, the safety personnel had to be on site throughout the whole period anyway, making the shutdown far from necessary. The companies involved will not lose out financially, as they will write it of as a loss on their end-of-year statements. The only losers are the consumer and the taxpayer.
FFS, please tell me that you are not, never have been nor ever will be employed by a private sector company!

How can a company "write it of(sic) as a loss on their end-of-year statements" and not lose out financially? Where do you think the money comes from to pay for that loss?

If the company has to shut down for 2% of its annual production cycle then guess what: annual production will be down 2% but costs will have (at best) remained static or actually increased (thanks to employing extra safety staff, overtime shifts, process start costs, increased power consumption, etc ad nauseum). So if it was on schedule to make 1,000,000GBP turnover then guess what? It will only make 980,000GBP. Thus the owners of the company (be it an individual, family, pension fund, etc) will have lost 20,000 GBP. A decent fuel refinery has an annual turnover of several hundred million GBP.

So Mr. Stupid Cúnt of the Month winner, where will the money come from? Or are you a socialist moron who simply thinks that money is evil and if you need any then the State can simply print some more?
 
#76
ishinryu said:
At the end of the day criminal damage is criminal damage. The only time it is justified, is when you are trying to prevent serious injury, or imminent death and/or destruction (for the greenies out there, a coal fired power station does not constitute imminent death and/or destruction), or when sanctioned by a senior police officer or judge, in the form of a warrant.
Ie the law is the law, and is both universal and blind.

Except that it isn't.

If you are an Eon, you simply tell the government what laws suit you, and they jump. And if anyone else gets in your way, you have sufficient financial resources to ensure the law works for you.

Having worked within the crazy, hazy zone that is the big business/central government interface (for the big business side, I hasten to add), I have little faith in what we laughingly call democracy in this country. If you have strong feelings of injustice, what are you supposed to do - write to your MP?

There are many examples of direct action protest that appear repellent. However, without them, women would not have received the vote, illegal land enclosures would have continued, and numerous other hard-won benefits for ordinary people would never have been achieved.

I am not saying that these protesters are necessarily right, just that their actions were not necessarily disproportionate to their aims, and the judge/jury seemed to agree.

Ancient_Mariner said:
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.
You are stretching my libertarian principles to the breaking point of hypocrisy there. I suppose I would salve my conscience by saying that there are always limits, and traducing the dead (who - unlike Eon or the governmenmt, cannot answer back) for a political aim that has nothing whatsoever to do with them is way outside of those limits.
 
#77
Dilfor said:
ishinryu said:
At the end of the day criminal damage is criminal damage. The only time it is justified, is when you are trying to prevent serious injury, or imminent death and/or destruction (for the greenies out there, a coal fired power station does not constitute imminent death and/or destruction), or when sanctioned by a senior police officer or judge, in the form of a warrant.
Ie the law is the law, and is both universal and blind.

Except that it isn't.

If you are an Eon, you simply tell the government what laws suit you, and they jump. And if anyone else gets in your way, you have sufficient financial resources to ensure the law works for you.

Having worked within the crazy, hazy zone that is the big business/central government interface (for the big business side, I hasten to add), I have little faith in what we laughingly call democracy in this country. If you have strong feelings of injustice, what are you supposed to do - write to your MP?

There are many examples of direct action protest that appear repellent. However, without them, women would not have received the vote, illegal land enclosures would have continued, and numerous other hard-won benefits for ordinary people would never have been achieved.

I am not saying that these protesters are necessarily right, just that their actions were not necessarily disproportionate to their aims, and the judge/jury seemed to agree.
What you seem to forget are the other direct action protests carried out by other groups like the ALF, who desecrate the graves of old women and steal the corpse, like the sending of indendiary devices to workers in Capita because other people disagree with congestion charges. How about the 7/7 bombers and 21/7 plotters who claimed to be carrying out a direct action protest aginst British foreign policy and the so-called mistreatment of Muslims worldwide. Yes, these are all direct actions protests, and yes they are repellant, but this latest ruling will put the thought into the narrow minds of these protestors that they have a moral right to break the law in order to further their cause.

Legal peaceful protest can achieve things, it just takes slightly longer, you don't have to damage property or tresspass to make your point heard. I don't remember Emily Wilding Davison as some magnificent feminist martyr, just some poor soul who got killed under the hooves of a horse whilst trying to carry out a stupid publicity stunt. (One for the 1913 Darwin Awards). The only reason why women got the vote following WW1 was the fantastic effort that they displayed in helping the war effort, often doing the jobs of the men who had been send off to fight, thereby displaying that they deserved to right to vote. The protest before then, from 1897 to 1914 had very little effect other than to annoy the government. The only time the during this period that the public backed the suffragettes was when they were being force-fed in prison whenever they went on hunger strike.

What happens if at the Big Blockade at Aldermaston later this month someone decides to take 'direct action' and they get stopped by the MDP and Oxon Police Force. Their arrests could spark off the more militant of the protesters to start attacking the police officers for arrresting their mate. I have seen this happen at other stand-offs between police and so called peaceful demonstrators. An undermining of the law leads to a breakdown of civilised society and then we have anarchy.

The law should be black and white, not open to the interpretations of a liberal judge who allows his own personal agenda to affect a criminal trial.
 
#78
ishinryu said:
An undermining of the law leads to a breakdown of civilised society and then we have anarchy.

The law should be black and white, not open to the interpretations of a liberal judge who allows his own personal agenda to affect a criminal trial.
You know full well that 'at the end of the day' - as you put it - the law is certainly not black and white.

I am sure you also know that the law is also constantly changing - and it bends far more in response to those with large amounts of money or entrenched power than a few crusty jugglers up a chimney.

When big business undermines the law the very fabric of society is not rent from top to bottom, so why so by some hippies?
 
#79
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 ?
Letting them off scot-free is bizarre.

However, on what basis do you consider them "terrorists"? Who precisely did they terrorise?
 
#80
ishinryu said:
The law should be black and white, not open to the interpretations of a liberal judge who allows his own personal agenda to affect a criminal trial.
Fa, shu and shi, in other words. That's been the tool of tyrants since prehistory. I'd rather not have it in Britain, thank you very much.

Laws should be open to interpretation, that's how we achieve justice. Blind obedience to the law is best left to totalitarianism in my mind.
 

Latest Threads

Top