« Nice way to spend the money | Main | Wiltshire - the home of the BBQ »

Dim Juries and Tories

Apologies if a previous post of mine suggested that I considered juries to be a bedrock of sense. Whilst they are our best hope for justice, especially against the excesses of the State, that doesn't mean they are always sensible. Obviously they can be as stupid and contrary as the next man, if the next man happens to be a Greenpeace activist. Or as EU Referendum points out David Cameron's "environmental policy adviser".
As they ask, is vandalism and criminal damage part of the Tory policy to push us back to the dark ages?


Comments

Sweet Bleeding Jesus on the Cross - this is the worst "legal" decision i have EVER heard.
- I'm gonna put the windows of your house/jag/holiday cottage through - however I am fighting climate change and my actions are justified. Thankyou.

Sweet Bleeding Jesus on the Cross - this is the worst "legal" decision i have EVER heard.
- I'm gonna put the windows of your house/jag/holiday cottage through - however I am fighting climate change and my actions are justified. Thankyou.

Mr. Englishman, I was always under the impression that trespass was a civil offence, whereas trespass, during which damage was caused, whether deliberate or accidental, became a criminal offence. Maybe that is another law that was changed under NuLab.
Can you find the addresses of the six and publish them, so that other activists, concerned about the possible loss of plant-life if CO2 goes too low, can go along and paint slogans on their windows, doors and faces. (Preferably with a two by four)
Seems to me, without reading the transcripts, that there was some very bad directions to the jury by the judge. Can there be any appeal by the Crown?

Solution. Activists, hemp rope, tree, some assembly required.

But haven't the rules on self defence just been revised? Someone breaks into your premises and begins to damage things, how much force are you now allowed to use? Would a quick 999 call and a panicky "Jesus! I think they're armed!" to the operator cover you legally before you shoot the lousy soap dodgers.

Thank christ for that...for one moment I thought we had lost you to the other side...the magic words America or global warming and the accused is a free man...the game has changed.

Words fail, I had hoped that the jury system would save us from predatory policemen and others of such a bent, but apparently not now. oh s**t, now we are in trouble. I do wonder though if the CPS were lax in their efforts, especially now that Camerloony tunes might become PM.

The Kingsnorth verdict is aweful.

That being said, I have only been on a jury once and I was surprised and impressed by the whole proceeding.

I and my fellow jurors were allowed to put questions to the witnesses (in writing but read out by the Judge) and he then asked us if we were happy with the answers. From the way he read them out it seemed to us that the Judge agreed with the questions and was happy to help us. We asked for a list of defendants and witnesses because I felt it was getting confusing. The Judge agreed totally and required one of the baristers to produce it on the spot (over lunch if I remember correctly - bet he loved us!) and circulate the list. We were given clear instruction about how to weigh the evidence. We went away and a serious, intelligent discussion took place. Everyone had a chance to comment. We reached a unanimous decision within a few hours which we all felt entirely happy with.

The case was aggrevated domestic violence with a knife and rather a lot of blood involved. It seemed reasonable for the case to have been brought before the jury. It was also reasonable to find the accused Not Guilty.

I cannot speak for anyone or anywhere else but I was greatly reassured about how a jury can work.

(I know it does not always work that way ...)

Fascinating isn't it, how 'libertarian' instincts go straight out of the window when the right wing is faced with a decision it doesn't like. Suddenly a jury of "12 honest men (or women) and true" are no longer noble, but immediately become dupes of some Al Quaida-like criminal conspiracy.

And I just love the paranoia about - "Oh shit, someone's going to damage my Jag", and the threats of violence to the 6 activists (who acted with non-violent propriety throughout and gave themselves up to the police as soon as they were served with an injunction, thus obeying the letter of the law). True colours or what?

Truth is of course, that this trial sets no legal precedent and anyone who does damage your precious Jag would be tried and most likely convicted, so you can breathe again guys. Your property is safe. Except that what most of you seem really interested in is creating a climate of fear around the idea of 'dangerous environmental anarchists' being at large, not any kind of reasoned debate about the biggest threat we currently face.

The fact that 12 ordinary citizens in Kent chose to believe Greenpeace over EON and the government when all the facts were placed before them shows who's opinion is considered the most trustworthy, I reckon.

Cheers!

Fascinating isn't it, how 'libertarian' instincts go straight out of the window when the right wing is faced with a decision it doesn't like. Suddenly a jury of "12 honest men (or women) and true" are no longer noble, but immediately become dupes of some Al Quaida-like criminal conspiracy.

And I just love the paranoia about - "Oh shit, someone's going to damage my Jag", and the threats of violence to the 6 activists (who acted with non-violent propriety throughout and gave themselves up to the police as soon as they were served with an injunction, thus obeying the letter of the law). True colours or what?

Truth is of course, that this trial sets no legal precedent and anyone who does damage your precious Jag would be tried and most likely convicted, so you can breathe again guys. Your property is safe. Except that what most of you seem really interested in is creating a climate of fear around the idea of 'dangerous environmental anarchists' being at large, not any kind of reasoned debate about the biggest threat we currently face.

The fact that 12 ordinary citizens in Kent chose to believe Greenpeace over EON and the government when all the facts were placed before them shows who's opinion is considered the most trustworthy, I reckon.

Cheers!

Well Joss, I think you're right.

So, since this was a useful and necessary bit of vandalism; how much less CO2 does a powerplant produce when it has GORDON painted on it?

Must be a lot less seeing as they've clearly saved more property than they've damaged. I didn't even realize that CO2 from burning coal could be reduced by running the smoke through a chimney that had been painted on...

Amazing the things you learn. Painting on the side of a smokestack reduced CO2... can I paint something on my car to reduce emissions as well?

Post a comment