Guest 667- Registered: 6 Apr 2008
- Posts: 919
11 September 2008
07:255936#1
I think yesterday's not guilty verdict for the Greenpeace activists that climbed, defaced the chimney (criminal damage) at Kingsnorth Power Station and endangered people that work at the Power Station was totally wrong.
Criminal damage is criminal damage, yes they have every right to protest but causing damage to property no matter what the cause should not be condoned. This judgement has given the right to every protester that they can damage that which they are protesting against.
I wonder some times if these people use electric at home. They want to build a better coal fire station that is wrong, they want to build a nuclear power station that is wrong, they want to build wind turbines that is wrong. Hey what about "water" no one appears to object to that, well not until they want to do it and build the dam across the beautiful river spoiling the countryside. So we all want electric but not every one can agree how we produce it, and that which we are not happy about we can now wantonly vandalise.
I ask this. If those that wish to protest against the car, bus, plane etc because they endanger the planet, then go and paint over those forms of transport, is that Ok, after all it can not be denied they endanger us all even though we use them day by day.
Then we have the hypocrite scientist who travelled all the way by plane from America to speak for those that were on trial. Did he with all his knowledge not think that plane was also adding to global warming?
It does not matter what they painted on the chimney at Kingsnorth, they entered the site which was also illegal and damaged the property, how that can be condoned I do not know. Just wait for the next vandal that vandalises yours or my car and stands up to say he/she did it as cars damage their health. Stupid may be, but so was that verdict.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
11 September 2008
07:395940#2
Very good post Harry. Yes this outcome has raised concerns amongst many, but particularly amongst the Energy companies as it gives carte blanche to protesters to do more or less what they like, within reason. However it must be remembered that it was our fellow citizens, fellow proles, 12 men and true, who reached this decision. They sided with the small man rather than the steamrolling conglomerates.
Greenpeace got a similar verdict before as I remember when they destroyed GM crops some years ago. Was very painful to look at them destroying valuable crops but perhaps their motives are pure and thats whats getting them off in the courts. There is little point putting these guys in prison. Our prisons are over full anyway but.. thats another matter.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
11 September 2008
09:195947#3
You are absolutely right Harry. This is an appalling decision and runs in the face of common sense. The jury must have lost its collective mind.
We are facing some serious energy problems with shortages of gas and oil due to increasing demand. We are already seeing that supply can only be maintained with higher and higher prices. The Government knows this and have been warned about it by the Renewable Energy Foundation who admit that wind/wave and other renewable sources have no hope if filling the energy gap. The Government's failing to commit yet to a new programme of building nuclear power stations increases the chances of future power cuts. These stations take time to plan and build and are not likely to be ready in time to bridge the gap.
An interesting point, a Conservative MP has said also that the Government should invest in scientific research into 'clean coal' energy. A lot of money is being spent in Germany on this already. Given the need to have a multiplicity of generation it makes sense. Coal, of course at the moment, is environmentally unsound and will only become acceptable if these problems can be properly overcome.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
11 September 2008
09:325948#4
1. We must accept the Jurys' decision regardless of whether we agree or disagree with their verdict otherwise the whole judicial system would go into meltdown.
2.Maybe this decision is more of a reflection upon the shift in society and its thinking towards energy resources than it is towards the (non) offence committed.
3.Barry research is well underway in this country regarding clean coal excavation.As you are aware basically most of the 'messy 'stuff is done underground before the fuel is pumped to the surface and with over 300 years coal under our feet it is an industry worth pursuing.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 667- Registered: 6 Apr 2008
- Posts: 919
11 September 2008
17:195958#5
That is my point Merek we have to accept their decission as that is our judicial system, but what flood gates are now going to be opened.
By this verdict they have said as long as you can proove that harm may come to others, you can do what you like in protest against it even if it endangers others in carrying out that protest.
Turn out the lights, well I dam well think the 12 good and true already had theirs turned out.
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
12 September 2008
05:566005#6
I disagree Harry, criminal damage is a crime or more to the point, something that is deemed to be wrong by consensus. By directly affecting the health and environment of people (both locally and globally) E-On were making a decision that would infringe the negative rights of everyone. The jury came to a consensus (one shared by most of us here and the nation) that a return to developing coal fired power stations is a threat to us and future generations. The activist were essentially claiming to be protecting global negative rights (we often justifiably kill crazy dictators for the same reason, although murder is also a crime)
The government have failed to act and invest, in our interests, on yet another underpinning requirement of our nation. They have then chosen to do 'rectify' the solution with yet another 'quick fix' plan. Barry often talks, quite rightly, of the way in which this government has enjoyed a strong economy in recent year but made no economic provision for the future (now!) I view this attempt to reinstate fossil fuels as an option exactly the same. These activists, admittedly extreme, have made a stand in a country of diminishing democracy with all parties favouring the management of society over the leadership. It is no wonder electoral numbers are falling when people are no longer feeling represented.
It is the consensus of not only 12 individuals on a jury, but of most of the civilised and educated world that burning coal is no longer an option, these people just reminded our government of that, albeit in the worst way. Due to this outcome their act was therefore righteous, which is the fundamental principle of all morality and laws. This is how we have evolved a set of codes to judge what is right and wrong, and what has been right at one point in time and place may well prove to be wrong at another! The jury were expressing 'common sense' because this is exactly what common sense is, consensus!
I remember working in a shop not so long ago and the boss using the term 'you've got no common sense' to patronise younger members of staff. Actually what he meant was "that's not how I would do it." (Which was usually equally ineffective) the reason he used the term was to place some kind of consensual gravitas to his pedantic nit-picking. Barry, I find it hard to accept denial of common sense and recognition of collective minds hard to accept in the same sentence.
This decision is a reflection on the collective views of society and although instigated in the worst way a reminder that we live in a country where righteousness is recognised.
12 September 2008
06:596006#7
Good post DT1..............
Guest 667- Registered: 6 Apr 2008
- Posts: 919
12 September 2008
07:386010#8
DT1 I accept a great deal of what you say, although not that of criminal damage. To me trespass, damaging property and putting people's lives at risk is a crime. I have to accept this jury's verdict, but I do not have to agree with it now saying "Anything is Ok as long as you can prove your point that it is directly affecting the health and environment of the people".
The problem I have with this verdict is where does the line get drawn between those committing criminal damage and those committing criminal damage because it is directly affecting the health and environment of people standing against.
I am not saying they do & did not have a just cause to protest and I am certainly not defending coal powered stations. It is the larger picture of ones right to trespass, cause criminal damage and endanger life. I just see that the flood gates are now open to do as you wish as long as you have a cause to fight for.
We all want to switch the lights on but which power production is the answer to the Worlds global problems. One thing is for sure which ever is chosen some will want to protest. Myself I would rather see water used for the production of power but then we come down to cost, is it environmentally friendly and have we enough water ways to use.
12 September 2008
07:576011#9
The line is drawn by the jury - that is the point of them........
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
12 September 2008
14:166029#10
Harry, would you consider it to be criminal damage if social workers broke into a house to rescue a child from abuse? The defence made by these protesters is that the object of their protest would be an abuse against all of us the only difference being that they were not empowered by an act of government. As to water power, the only people spending time on research in this area are universities, the government preffering to invest in nuclear research (with all these questionably useful by products). Given the dire need to improve coastal defences and large river banks in flood risk areas I would have thought it the most logical move to look into ways of combining them with power generation.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
Guest 667- Registered: 6 Apr 2008
- Posts: 919
12 September 2008
19:526041#11
No of course I would not Chris as I would not consider that criminal damage. However on the other hand is it now right if someone protesting against car omissions goes down the road and paints names on the side of every car after all the car is doing its fair share of damage to this planet of ours.
Yes the jury has decided Bern and I accept their decision, but I do not have to agree with it. I will not condone Criminal Damage simple as that. I take it you have never had to disagree with a Jury verdict, they have been known to make errors you know, only time will tell in this case.
Wales make a good amount of use out of water in their production of electricity "Electric Mountain" in Snowdonia is a good example of how it can be done. Although England does not have the mountains that Wales does, we still have a large amount of water ways so there is no reason why water could not be a front runner in this field.
Oh by the way I am not against protest and I accept their right to protest against coal fire stations, that is democracy. I also as I have said accept the verdict of the jury but I also have the right to protest against that verdict by voicing my point of view.
Any way said my bit, time to move on and wait to see the outcome of this verdict...
12 September 2008
20:366044#12
But you asked where the line gets drawn, and the answer is, by the jury. I often don't agree with those decisions (especially in cases of leniency towards child abusers or violenct crimes), but that is the function of the jury, expertlly led by the judge......ah, I begin to see a flaw developing...........
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
12 September 2008
21:156046#13
Having done jury service I can assure you that, especially where complicated scientific evidence is being presented, the judges lead is what is formost in the juries mind. Unless he really pees them off most will accept that he or she knows the law better than them.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
12 September 2008
21:176047#14
this sounds a very complicated case.
the jury must have been swayed by some very strong argument to reach the decison they did.
unfortunately, we will never know what went on.
as has been said, we have to abide by the 12 persons, good and true.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
14 September 2008
09:096075#15
I do understand where Harry comes from, and its a difficult one.
but so many laws are in place now to stop people protesting, I Go back to an earlier post on trade unions
they have so many obstacles to ovecome before they can protest this is not a level playing field with the employer
bit wide of this debate but if you believe in democracy and every having rights then this shoul also be considered